2024-25 RealGM All-Season Awards Discussion Thread

[BusywithBball]

[quote=“Lessthanjake”]If OKC wins the Finals, then it seems extremely straightforward to me that SGA should be POY. Even if we think Jokic played a bit better overall this year (which I do actually agree with), being on a 68-win team that wins the title is a massive achievement and should easily allow him to leapfrog Jokic. It actually gets more complicated if the Thunder get upset in the Finals. At that point, I think Jokic has a shout for it, since IMO he’d have played a bit better and SGA wouldn’t have converted on having the best team. It’d still be close, though, because even just the 68-wins and SRS record was really impressive. But I very much doubt the Thunder will lose the Finals, so we very likely won’t have to really confront that question.

After SGA and Jokic, I do think Giannis was clearly the 3rd best player. If the Pacers win the title, then I think Haliburton gets #3 (assuming he’s good in the Finals, but it’s hard to imagine them winning without that being the case), because winning the title is a big deal. But otherwise, Giannis is #3 IMO. I think Haliburton has already done enough to be #4, so he will stay there unless he’s bad in a Finals loss. And I’d say #5 is Tatum. There might be an argument for Donovan Mitchell at #5 too. Both Tatum and Mitchell led great regular season teams, both of them were generally good overall in the playoffs but had a couple crucial bad games in the round their team lost. Tatum getting injured maybe weighs against him (though it does also mean his team didn’t quite lose a series with him), but overall I just think Tatum is a better player than Donovan, so I put him ahead. If Haliburton is bad in the Finals, then Tatum and Haliburton would probably be flipped.[/quote]
I agree alot and it reminds me of MVP. Jokic better yes but you have to applaud sixty-eight wins. I think even if OKC lose if Shai plays great like first 4 I can’t pick against.

I think Jokic might won too with this great team but what you do matters too.

[Doctor MJ]

Siakim has more impact?

Some indicators say so yes.

[Doctor MJ]

I think it was here we had a short discussion on replacement level.

<cool graph>

Folks will set it at the very worst handful of players in the league, when it should be after the sharp decrease at -1. It doesn't make any logical sense for the talent distribution to crater after -1 in between the 'just in the league' and 'just out of the league' level. And the play of the -1 guys in other leagues certainly doesn't suggest it. Much more likely that there are more -2 players in the world than -1 guys.

*Numbers are specific to this study, though pretty consistent to others I've seen/done. Notes on distribution hold across other numbers.

I don't remember if it was this thread or not, but I think I was involved and I've been thinking about it a lot lately.

I get your thinking that wherever the mode of the league is, that should be the replacement level. I'm not going to say it's wrong, but the higher you set the replacement level, the more guys who are going to rate as below replacement level, and the more awkward things can become.

So in my recent RAPM VORP study, I used a replacement level of -3.35. Here are guys I have playing more than 20K minutes with a negative cume VORP, along with their career earnings.

Jeff Green $102 mill
Ricky Davis $42 mill
Drew Gooden $67 mill
Kevin Martin $83 mill
Tristan Thompson $122 mill

Why include the money? Not to do a bashing of these guys, but just as a reminder:

Actual "replacement players" in the NBA get paid peanuts compared to these numbers. So this is the awkward thing:

How messed up is it that one guy makes $100 mill while apparently being worse at basketball than a horde of other guys - most of whom won't ever get rich playing ball? What's going on there?

I do think there's good conversation to be had about each of these guys, but I suppose my real concern comes when you use a much higher level. If I do the same query with a -1 replacement and I get way more guys, will we really believe it logical that all these guys spent their careers actively damaging their team on average compared to what a guy they could pick up from the G-league at any point?

Alright, here's that list then of guys I haveplaying 20K minutes who'd have a negative VORP with the -1 standard:

Spoiler:

Jeff Green
Ricky Davis
Drew Gooden
Kevin Martin
Tristan Thompson
Jarrett Jack
Juwan Howard
Luke Ridnour
Jason Williams
Samuel Dalembert
John Salmons
Larry Hughes
DJ Augustin
Jordan Clarkson
Antoine Walker
Nick Van Exel
Donyell Marshall
Shareef Abdur-Rahim
Erick Dampier
Jerami Grant
Mo Williams
Zach LaVine
Michael Finley
Al Jefferson
Damon Stoudamire
Jamal Crawford
Andrew Wiggins
Arron Afflalo
Jalen Rose
Clifford Robinson
Jim Jackson
Rajon Rondo
Carlos Boozer
Jonas Valanciunas
Joe Smith
Robin Lopez

I'll leave it without further comment right now.

Last note:

In theory, a team full of replacement level players should yield an SRS 5 times the player APM. So if replacement level is -1, then we should expect a team like that to be able to perform at -5 SRS. Level -2? -10 SRS. Level -3? -15 SRS.

For me, this is something pushing toward more extreme values of replacement level. I'm just really skeptical that you could create a new team out of leftovers, and expect that team to have a chance being better than a roster of some of the guys listed in the spoiler.

I can understand the example where an NBA team is emphasizing youth, coupled with injuries and a front office that would like a high draft pick, and how that could lead to a negative VORP team, so I'm not saying it's literally impossible for a real NBA team to be that bad, but I wouldn't say that's what was going on with the guys listed.

[Doctor MJ]

So a few kids have been telling me about impact statistic and RAPM but I haven’t seen it in 2025. Is Siakam better?

I don’t want to only look at stats but if Haliburton is not the #1 on floor I have to reconsider his greatness a little. I haven’t really thought about Tyrese vs Siakam much but Haliburton is assisting more and scoring almost same on better ts% and playing better on Thunder too.

Well, worth getting into some data, though I always caution that there's no one definitive measure.

By Englemann's RAPM for this year, here's how the main 5 Pacers look look:

Player Offense Defense Overall
Pascal Siakam 0.3 -2.1 2.4
Aaron Nesmith 2.6 0.2 2.4
Tyrese Haliburton 3.1 1.1 2.0
Andrew Nembhard -0.0 -1.7 1.6
Myles Turner 0.1 0.1 0.0

So, Pascal comes out the top defender and overall (apparently slightly ahead of Nesmith), while Haliburton comes out on top for offense. Makes sense. Also paints a picture that isn't super excited about these guys at all really. I mean, their finals opponent Shai tops the measure with +8.3, so clearly the way they're playing right now, the Pacers have found some new gears as the season has progressed.

Now to use a hybrid RAPM metric, here's the same for Season EPM Estimated Wins:

Tyrese Haliburton 4.2
Pascal Siakam 3.3
Aaron Nesmith 1.6
Myles Turner 0.7
Andrew Nembhard 0.6

So, this one favors Hali, fwiw.

[eminence]

I think it was here we had a short discussion on replacement level.

<cool graph>

Folks will set it at the very worst handful of players in the league, when it should be after the sharp decrease at -1. It doesn't make any logical sense for the talent distribution to crater after -1 in between the 'just in the league' and 'just out of the league' level. And the play of the -1 guys in other leagues certainly doesn't suggest it. Much more likely that there are more -2 players in the world than -1 guys.

*Numbers are specific to this study, though pretty consistent to others I've seen/done. Notes on distribution hold across other numbers.

I don't remember if it was this thread or not, but I think I was involved and I've been thinking about it a lot lately.

I get your thinking that wherever the mode of the league is, that should be the replacement level. I'm not going to say it's wrong, but the higher you set the replacement level, the more guys who are going to rate as below replacement level, and the more awkward things can become.

So in my recent RAPM VORP study, I used a replacement level of -3.35. Here are guys I have playing more than 20K minutes with a negative cume VORP, along with their career earnings.

Jeff Green $102 mill
Ricky Davis $42 mill
Drew Gooden $67 mill
Kevin Martin $83 mill
Tristan Thompson $122 mill

Why include the money? Not to do a bashing of these guys, but just as a reminder:

Actual "replacement players" in the NBA get paid peanuts compared to these numbers. So this is the awkward thing:

How messed up is it that one guy makes $100 mill while apparently being worse at basketball than a horde of other guys - most of whom won't ever get rich playing ball? What's going on there?

I do think there's good conversation to be had about each of these guys, but I suppose my real concern comes when you use a much higher level. If I do the same query with a -1 replacement and I get way more guys, will we really believe it logical that all these guys spent their careers actively damaging their team on average compared to what a guy they could pick up from the G-league at any point?

Alright, here's that list then of guys I haveplaying 20K minutes who'd have a negative VORP with the -1 standard:

Spoiler:

Jeff Green
Ricky Davis
Drew Gooden
Kevin Martin
Tristan Thompson
Jarrett Jack
Juwan Howard
Luke Ridnour
Jason Williams
Samuel Dalembert
John Salmons
Larry Hughes
DJ Augustin
Jordan Clarkson
Antoine Walker
Nick Van Exel
Donyell Marshall
Shareef Abdur-Rahim
Erick Dampier
Jerami Grant
Mo Williams
Zach LaVine
Michael Finley
Al Jefferson
Damon Stoudamire
Jamal Crawford
Andrew Wiggins
Arron Afflalo
Jalen Rose
Clifford Robinson
Jim Jackson
Rajon Rondo
Carlos Boozer
Jonas Valanciunas
Joe Smith
Robin Lopez

I'll leave it without further comment right now.

Last note:

In theory, a team full of replacement level players should yield an SRS 5 times the player APM. So if replacement level is -1, then we should expect a team like that to be able to perform at -5 SRS. Level -2? -10 SRS. Level -3? -15 SRS.

For me, this is something pushing toward more extreme values of replacement level. I'm just really skeptical that you could create a new team out of leftovers, and expect that team to have a chance being better than a roster of some of the guys listed in the spoiler.

I can understand the example where an NBA team is emphasizing youth, coupled with injuries and a front office that would like a high draft pick, and how that could lead to a negative VORP team, so I'm not saying it's literally impossible for a real NBA team to be that bad, but I wouldn't say that's what was going on with the guys listed.

We got something mixed up.

I wouldn’t advocate for the mode, but for the slot below the mode (-2 in that example). Assuming a somewhat similar distribution (numbers may vary, but that shape should remain). I very very strongly suspect the ‘true’ talent distribution of players who make the NBA resembles that curve.

I am advocating for setting the replacement level at ~10% instead of at the ~1% we see on some stats. BPM is an example that is actually too far in the other direction imo.

Jeff Green is the only player I consistently see below career replacement level at those minutes levels. Sorry Jeff Green.

Edit: Team level is what initially led me in the direction of -2 over -3. I believe we've seen teams that are at least very close to averaging replacement player. No team ever has won at a -3 rate. 6 teams under -2.5: '48 Steamrollers, '73 Sixers, '93 Mavs, '98 Nuggets, '12 Bobcats, '16 Sixers.

Generally I was trying to focus where on the curve to set as replacement and not the particular numbers though. Some folks have very different spreads on their curves and that's a bit of a different discussion (see JEs career curve that goes all the way from -9 to +10).

[Doctor MJ]

I think it was here we had a short discussion on replacement level.

<cool graph>

Folks will set it at the very worst handful of players in the league, when it should be after the sharp decrease at -1. It doesn't make any logical sense for the talent distribution to crater after -1 in between the 'just in the league' and 'just out of the league' level. And the play of the -1 guys in other leagues certainly doesn't suggest it. Much more likely that there are more -2 players in the world than -1 guys.

*Numbers are specific to this study, though pretty consistent to others I've seen/done. Notes on distribution hold across other numbers.

I don't remember if it was this thread or not, but I think I was involved and I've been thinking about it a lot lately.

I get your thinking that wherever the mode of the league is, that should be the replacement level. I'm not going to say it's wrong, but the higher you set the replacement level, the more guys who are going to rate as below replacement level, and the more awkward things can become.

So in my recent RAPM VORP study, I used a replacement level of -3.35. Here are guys I have playing more than 20K minutes with a negative cume VORP, along with their career earnings.

Jeff Green $102 mill
Ricky Davis $42 mill
Drew Gooden $67 mill
Kevin Martin $83 mill
Tristan Thompson $122 mill

Why include the money? Not to do a bashing of these guys, but just as a reminder:

Actual "replacement players" in the NBA get paid peanuts compared to these numbers. So this is the awkward thing:

How messed up is it that one guy makes $100 mill while apparently being worse at basketball than a horde of other guys - most of whom won't ever get rich playing ball? What's going on there?

I do think there's good conversation to be had about each of these guys, but I suppose my real concern comes when you use a much higher level. If I do the same query with a -1 replacement and I get way more guys, will we really believe it logical that all these guys spent their careers actively damaging their team on average compared to what a guy they could pick up from the G-league at any point?

Alright, here's that list then of guys I haveplaying 20K minutes who'd have a negative VORP with the -1 standard:

Spoiler:

Jeff Green
Ricky Davis
Drew Gooden
Kevin Martin
Tristan Thompson
Jarrett Jack
Juwan Howard
Luke Ridnour
Jason Williams
Samuel Dalembert
John Salmons
Larry Hughes
DJ Augustin
Jordan Clarkson
Antoine Walker
Nick Van Exel
Donyell Marshall
Shareef Abdur-Rahim
Erick Dampier
Jerami Grant
Mo Williams
Zach LaVine
Michael Finley
Al Jefferson
Damon Stoudamire
Jamal Crawford
Andrew Wiggins
Arron Afflalo
Jalen Rose
Clifford Robinson
Jim Jackson
Rajon Rondo
Carlos Boozer
Jonas Valanciunas
Joe Smith
Robin Lopez

I'll leave it without further comment right now.

Last note:

In theory, a team full of replacement level players should yield an SRS 5 times the player APM. So if replacement level is -1, then we should expect a team like that to be able to perform at -5 SRS. Level -2? -10 SRS. Level -3? -15 SRS.

For me, this is something pushing toward more extreme values of replacement level. I'm just really skeptical that you could create a new team out of leftovers, and expect that team to have a chance being better than a roster of some of the guys listed in the spoiler.

I can understand the example where an NBA team is emphasizing youth, coupled with injuries and a front office that would like a high draft pick, and how that could lead to a negative VORP team, so I'm not saying it's literally impossible for a real NBA team to be that bad, but I wouldn't say that's what was going on with the guys listed.

We got something mixed up.

I wouldn’t advocate for the mode, but for the slot below the mode (-2 in that example). Assuming a somewhat similar distribution (numbers may vary, but that shape should remain). I very very strongly suspect the ‘true’ talent distribution of players who make the NBA resembles that curve.

I am advocating for setting the replacement level at ~10% instead of at the ~1% we see on some stats. BPM is an example that is actually too far in the other direction imo.

Jeff Green is the only player I consistently see below career replacement level at those minutes levels. Sorry Jeff Green.

Edit: Team level is what initially led me in the direction of -2 over -3. I believe we've seen teams that are at least very close to averaging replacement player. No team ever has won at a -3 rate. 6 teams under -2.5: '48 Steamrollers, '73 Sixers, '93 Mavs, '98 Nuggets, '12 Bobcats, '16 Sixers.

Generally I was trying to focus where on the curve to set as replacement and not the particular numbers though. Some folks have very different spreads on their curves and that's a bit of a different discussion (see JEs career curve that goes all the way from -9 to +10).

Oh interesting.

Okay, I do get the categorical appeal of "the slot below the mode", it's just that I'm looking to operate in a real number space and so don't really think in terms of slots so much as I think about methods of getting a number that feels like it's not coming from arbitrary decisions.

I don't know how everyone who has calculated replacement player before has done it, but I'll put forward two ways, the first I know has been done and the second I'd expect has:

1. Make a graph of all the players in a given sample based on RAPM vs MP, generate a line of best fit, and whatever the RAPM is when the line crosses 0 MP is your replacement level.

2. Replace all players below a certain minutes threshold in your sample with one "Replacement Player", and then proceed with the regression as normal. Whatever your Replacement Player's RAPM ends up as, is your Replacement Level.

Definitely curious if others have looked into these methods more than me as it's something I haven't thought about in a good while.

Re: only Jeff Green below replacement. Okay, but was I clear about the fact that even with my extremely negative replacement level, you're getting more than just Green as a long-career veteran below replacement? Like I say, this is the thing that's key for me.

Let me focus in on Tristan Thompson for a second here. This dude wasn't just on a championship team, he was an absolutely critical part of that team. Do I expect that's possible with a typical replacement player? No, I really don't. So this sticks in my craw a bit.

Now, just because you peaked well above replacement level doesn't mean you spent most your career there, and so that's part of why seeing Thompson on that list doesn't lead me to see a red flag, If I go on nbarapm and look at his 3-year RAPM samples with thresholds at -1, -2, and -3.35 here's how his career would split:

-1: At or Above replacement 3 samples (16, 17, 18), below replacement 11 samples.
-2: At or Above replacement 6 samples (13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25), below replacement 8 samples.
-3.35 At or Above replacement 11 samples, below replacement 3 samples (12, 20, 21).

Okay so first, I gotta say, that last number is a problem for me I think in terms of me mixing and matching Englemann's career RAPM and nbarapm's RAPM studies because it's awfully hard for me to believe that a player with 11 out of his 14 years being above replacement would end up with a career below replacement.

But I think the basketball question here is just: What seems most right based on what we know of this player's career? I'll leave it there as a stem if folks want to examine that one more with me.

Re: believe we've seen teams that would average a replacement player. I think that's a great discussion for us to have. I'll start the conversation for 3 PBP era teams:

'97-98 Denver Nuggets
11-71
SRS -11.74
rORtg -6.0
rDRtg +7.1

Main 5 players by minutes with age:
Dean Garrett (31)
LaPhonzo Ellis (27)
Anthony Goldwire (26)
Johnny Newman (34)
Bobby Jackson (24)

How many of those guys were Main 5 the prior year? 1 (Ellis)
How many of those guys were Main 5 the next year? 0, and none even on the roster.

Worst Season PM with On-Off:

Dean Garrett -756 (-6.2)
LaPhonso Ellis -604 (-0.8)
Anthony Goldwire -522 (+0.9)
Eric Washington -519 (-7.1)
Bobby Jackson -491 (+1.7)

This group actually feels like a strong case for being what a replacement team would expect to look like in the sense that these guys were only in town for a hot minute, and then from there with Dean Garrett you've got perhaps the ultimate not-good +/- player we've ever seen.

The weird, and thus interesting, thing though, is the fact that this wasn't a young team, and nor was this a big tank year the way '96-97 was for Duncan. Worth doing more research into what happened at that time, as while I was around back then, I wasn't so invested to know what all the bad teams were trying to do.

Before I leave them though it's worth noting that the next year would see Denver hire Mike D'Antoni for his first NBA coaching gig, and the offense immediately spike to decency only for the GM (Dan Issel) to fire him, and hire himself. While at the time the subsequent results didn't look terrible, I think it's worth marveling at having the gall of firing the guy whose vision (already a known thing at the time) would remake the sport in the 21st century...because you thought you could do it better. It looks bad ass when you do this sort of thing and are a massive success (like Pop in SA), but man, I'd sure as hell rather have stuck with D'Antoni.

'11-12 Charlotte Bobcats
7-59
SRS -13.96
rORtg -9.4
rDRtg +5.8

Main 5 players by minutes with age:
Gerald Henderson (24)
Kemba Walker (21)
Byron Mullens (22)
Bismack Biyombo (19)
Derrick Brown (24)

How many of those guys were Main 5 the prior year? 0.
How many of those guys were Main 5 the next year? 3 (Walker, Biyombo, Henderson).

Worst Season PM with On-Off:

Kemba Walker -505 (+0.7)
Gerald Henderson -492 (+2.5)
Bismack Biyombo -462 (-2.0)
DJ Augustin -404 (+0.5)
Derrick Brown -379 (+1.7)

So this is a different case I'd say. This is a clear youth movement team who was very much hoping to win the lottery (2012 was a tank year for AD), and ended up with the #2 pick where they selected Michael Kidd-Gilchrist.

Further, when we see Kemba Walker in particular here, we know he would become a great player and that's what the team was trying to get him to become.

This then to say: This roster may or may not be better/worse than a replacement level team, but I don't think it should be a standard candle we look at here the way the '97-98 Nuggets could be.

Let me also note before I leave that in this shortened season, the quality of play might also be lower than typical for the NBA, and this might in particular hurt teams that were looking to build something new but lacked a typical season ramp-up get that going. This is another reason to look at these Bobcats as potentially even worse relative to replacement team level.

'15-16 Philadelphia 76ers
10-72
SRS -9.92
rORtg -7.6
rDRtg +2.8

Main 5 players by minutes with age:
Hollis Thompson (24)
Jerami Grant (21)
Isaiah Canaan (24)
Nerlens Noel (21)
Robert Covington (25)

How many of those guys were Main 5 the prior year? 3 (Noel, Covington, Thompson).
How many of those guys were Main 5 the next year? 1 (Covington).

Worst Season PM with On-Off:

Jahlil Okafor -495 (-9.4)
Jerami Grant -492 (+1.3)
Isaiah Canaan -484 (-4.7)
Nerlens Noel -459 (-1.4)
Nik Stauskas -405 (-2.3)

Okay so we know this is legendarily the most tanky team in the PBP era so I don't think we can use it for a standard candle either. We might say though that it's logically a candidate for a worse than replacement team so it's noteworthy that they didn't even have an SRS below -10.

The elephant in this particular room is the disaster that was Okafor. Okafor's OnCourt was a -16.4, so obviously that's well under not just -10 but -15 while playing with a bunch of other players well above -15. And of course Okafor tops the team for the season despite playing only 53 games - during which he was the team's primary scoring option which led him to make All-Rookie while playing at a level that really seems about as clearly sub-replacement level as you're ever going to see.

It's interesting. This was the season that made the outrage go crazy about Philly's tanking, but while they clearly qualify as a tanking team, I would say that the reason for the outrage was the team getting so, so bad this year, and so much of that was just a natural product of giving their top draft pick the primacy he'd expect to have if he can do his thing in the NBA. Okafor was just one of the most extreme cases of "nope, turns out you can't just do your thing against NBA players" from players drafted as potential stars that we've ever seen.

I'll right. I'll leave it there and just note again how much the '97-98 Nuggets seem like about as close as we're ever going to come to a true replacement team, and their SRS of -11.74 would yield a replacement player level of -2.348. I am still wary of using an actual team as the standard here, but I do think it's worth having a team in mind that feels in spirit as close to a replacement team as possible, and those Nuggets seem like it.

[Doctor MJ]

One Game Moooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre!

So some awards thoughts:

1. I've been thinking about DPOY more than anything else because it's just so unclear this year. Honestly, I find myself leaning toward Draymond & Gobert for my top 2 spot. Absolutely part of this is that these have been the two top defensive players of the past decade, they were in the regular season DPOY at least some after Wemby went down, and then they both had some success in the playoffs.

I had Zubac & Amen as my top 2 in the regular season, and I'm all for more discussion about them, but them being at the top of my regular season ballot was very analytical in a straight forward way, but the playoffs are a different thing. I don't feel like either was humiliated in the playoffs, but nor do I want to make the argument that I hold their playoff performance with Draymond & Gobert.

Beyond that, I'm thinking about Thundermen. JDub, Dort, Caruso, etc. I'm not sure what to do with them. I feel like Chet would have been the DPOY candidate had he been healthy this year, and he's likely going to be the DPOY candidate going forward. The fact that the Thunder have had a legendary defense through the season to this point makes me want to celebrate them, but I don't think any of the players who were healthy most of the season are quite on that level.

I will say that in a conversation with Gobert, there's a part of me that is fine favoring a Thunderman over him on the basis of them being the cutting edge paradigm, and Gobert not actually fitting with that, but I also don't think any of them can be the same kind of defensive anchor Gobert can.

Incidentally, I do want to emphasize Wemby is eligible for DPOY award. I expect he'll get an Honorable Mention for me because, while I don't honor the NBA's games limits, the fact that Wemby missed so much time and has no playoff minutes to make up for that makes it feel unreasonable to have him over guys who were actually available when it mattered.

2. For the biggy - the POY - the question on my mind right now: Is it reasonable to have it dependent on Game 7? It's between Shai & Jokic for me and obviously Jokic isn't in the Finals, so this is about Shai & the Thunder and what they do. There's a part of me that feels a pull to vote Shai if the Thunder win and Jokic if the Thunder lose, but analytically this is irrational.

However I'll also say that central to the reason that I had Shai as my MVP over Jokic basically all year is that Shai's +/- was so drastically above everyone else in the league. Sure you could argue that Jokic's On-Off and other such stats mean he was still more impressive, but Shai was operating at a level of on-court success that was exceptionally rare (basically just Steph-Dray Warriors territory) and I'm skeptical Jokic could ever get there with his defensive limitations.

As impressed as I am about Indiana though, the fact that the Thunder have been taken to 7 twice kinda blows up the idea that this Thunder team was an extreme outlier. Not knocking their future and I'll acknowledge that this whole "not bulletproof yet" thing in the playoffs is absolutely a rite of passage that legends (sometimes) gradually work their way past, but just in terms of '24-25, the debate between Shai & Jokic is very, very real for me right now.

3.Over at COY, I find myself leaning Rick Carlisle over Mark Daigneault at this time, but welcome a push back. I do think the Thunder defense represents the absolute cutting edge of NBA strategy, and Daigneault & his team really unveiled it this year. With a title, it feels natural to give Daigneault COY.

But then you have Carlisle & his team with the Pacers. While I do think a significant part of the what's gone on there is about the vibe between the players which is giving them exceptional resilience and confidence to try new things among role players, but the coaching staff probably shouldn't get an insane amount of credit for (not like you could do this with any roster, right Luka?).

However, over the course of the playoffs, it's felt like whenever the Pacers have gone up against a team doing something that forces them to level up, the coaching staff has been ready with just the right nudges to point their players to that level up.

I keep thinking about the movies Rocky I & II, where the underdog (Rocky) levels up as he realizes what he's capable of, loses the first time in a tough fight, and then wins the next time. I'll be thinking about this regardless of whether the Pacers win Game 7 because of course, maybe this was just the Rocky I season.

4. For EOY, honestly, here I'm a bit more comfortable just giving it to Presti if they win. I don't think Pelinka's Luka acquisition should be dismissed lightly, but I am someone who is extremely impressed by smart role player acquisitions when they are the final piece of the puzzle, particularly when the that exec built the whole team prior to that.

I wouldn't be saying this if I wasn't impressed by both iHart, and in the playoffs especially Caruso. Honestly, I feel like OKC loses in the 2nd round again this year (to Denver) without those moves, and it's not like I'd bet on Pelinka (the dude who traded away Caruso) making such perfect role player acquisitions in such a situation.

There's a GB thread asking why Pritchard isn't getting more love as the Pacer exec, and I'm here for it. I think Pritchard's good...but I also don't feel as compelled to single him out regardless of what happens in Game 7. To me, the story of the Pacers is more about players finding their groove playing on Carlisle's roster than it is about an eagle-eyed GM seeing things the coach never imagined - and yeah, part of this is that the story from Indiana is that Carlisle spearheaded the Haliburton acquisition.

5. Other awards I don't know if there's anything at the top spot that I'm pondering that much.

I think Jokic has got my OPOY in the bag.
I'm open to arguments about ROY, but nothing's changing based on what's going on in the Finals.
MIP I think I'm sticking with Zubac.
6MOY, while I think Caruso & McConnell are earning their rave reviews, but I don't think anyone is topping Pritchard for me.

[Djoker]

^Excellent post Doctor MJ.

I just want to chime in on COY! I really see Rick Carlisle as the frontrunner regardless of the outcome of Game 7. Mark Daigneault does deserve some credit for OKC's defense but man that personnel they have is ridiculous. These guys are so versatile, so long, so quick, so athletic. I feel like giving them the credit for OKC's defense makes more sense than giving it to the coach. Sure he implemented some effective schemes but honestly I feel Carlisle in the same position probably does even better. He is an elite X's and O's guys and already has championship experience both as a player and as a coach. What he's done with this Indiana team is incredible. They obviously have talent but they are better than the sum of their parts on both ends. I definitely see the love for Daigneault because of just how dominant OKC was in the regular season. Still, their vulnerability in the PS does have to have an impact on my valuation of him.

[lessthanjake]

Yeah, I think Carlisle should probably be Coach of the Year. The Pacers are a deep team, but getting that team to Game 7 of the Finals represents a massive difference between how well the team has played and what the sum of its parts are. And that’s especially true given how good their Finals opponent is and the fact that they did not have a particularly easy road to the Finals and they only dropped 4 games heading into the Finals. I can’t help but attribute that in large part to the coach, especially when there’s no individual player on the Pacers that has been overwhelmingly better than their norm in these playoffs. It’s somewhat simplistic analysis, but I just think that getting this team to play at this level is extremely impressive from a coaching perspective. My confidence that coaching is a major factor here is also bolstered by the fact that Carlisle has previously won a title with a team that played better than the sum of its parts.

[trelos6]

Ok, here's my ballot.

OPOY

1. Nikola Jokic. Anchored the #4 offense in the regular season, +5.4 rOrtg. Best passer and playmaker in the league. 38.7 pp100 at +8.7 rTS% in the regular season. In the playoffs he dropped to 32.7, +1.1 rTS%, but he did go up against the #1 and #3 defense in the league.

2. Shai Gilgeous Alexander. Top 10 playmaker. Anchored the #3 offense in the league, +5.8 rOrtg. 45.9 pp100 on +6.1 rTS% in the regular season, dropped to 39.2 pp100 on -0.2 rTS% in the playoffs.

3. Tyrese Haliburton. Top 2 passer and top 10 playmaker in the league. 26.6 pp100 on +4 rTS%. Anchored a top 9 offense in the regular season, +2 Ortg, but a top 4 offense in the playoffs, going up against the #1, 8, 12 and 14 defenses in the regular season. 25.3 pp100 at +0.5 rTS%.

DPOY

1. Draymond Green. This should have been Wemnanyama. But, alas. Anchored a -2.8 rDRtg defense. Highly impactful defender on a team without much defensive talent.

2. Ivica Zubac. Breakout season, anchoring a -4.2 rDRtg. Held Jokic well below his season averages in the 7 games.

3. Evan Mobley. Top 8 defense in the league. I want to give a Thunder player the nod, but there is too many to choose from. Caruso was DPOY for the playoffs, but his limited minutes in the regular season hurt him. Dort was great, Chet was great, J Dub was mr Versatile on D. So, I’m giving it to the actual DPOY in Mobley.

POY

1. Shai Gilgeous Alexander. Not the best player in the league, but the combination of his awesome regular season, solid volume scoring in the playoffs gets him the nod ahead of Jokic. Borderline All-Time level season.

2. Nikola Jokic. Amazing season. Was my POY all the way up to the last few games of the finals. But I must give SGA his flowers.

3. Giannis Antetokounmpo. 43pp100, +4.9 rTS% in the regular season, 43.8 pp100 on +7.5 rTS% in the playoffs..

4. Jayson Tatum. 36.9pp100 on +0.6 TS%. 36.6 pp100 on -1 rTS%. The playmaking engine behind the #2 offense. +6.1 rOrtg, and a big part of a top 5 defense, -3.4 rDRtg.

5. Tyrese Haliburton. Neutral on defense, but as my #3 OPOY.


ROY

1. Jaylen Wells. Started 74 games on a playoff team.

2. Risacher. Showed some flashes.

3. Castle. Top rookie scorer outside of McCain. Weak class though.

MIP

1. Evan Mobley. Made the jump to All NBA.

2. Cade Cunningham. Made the jump to All NBA.

3. Ivica Zubac. Argument for him to have been All NBA 3rd team.

6MOY

1. Alex Caruso. The best defender in the league on a per minute basis. 41% from 3 in the playoffs. Big reason why the Thunder got past the Nuggets, and then the Pacers.

2. Payton Pritchard. Impacted the games offensively off the bench. Started and put up some big scoring games, which is the job of a 6th man, to fill in when injuries happen.

3. Ty Jerome. Was a big part of the Cavs league leading offense. Crushed opposing bench lineups when he was on the floor.

COY

1. Deignault. Implemented a terrific defensive system which was a -7 rDRtg, and they were missing a big man for the majority of the season.

2. Carlisle. Great adjustments in the playoffs. Ability to ride his bench when needed to produce some amazing playoff success.

3. Kenny Atkinson. Implemented a great offensive system in Cleveland which led to the Cavs being the #1 offense, at a +7.2 rORtg.

EOY

1. Sam Presti. Traded Giddey for Caruso, signed IHart. 2 players who were instrumental to the eventual champions.

2. Rob Pelinka. He upgraded a top 10 player for a top 5 player. This will keep the Lakers relevant in the post Lebron era.

3. Trajan Langdon. Picked up some vets in Tobias Harris, Malik Beasley. Traded for Schroder who was impactful. They were a few possessions away from beating the Knicks.

[Doctor MJ]

Ok, here's my ballot.

OPOY

1. Nikola Jokic. Anchored the #4 offense in the regular season, +5.4 rOrtg. Best passer and playmaker in the league. 38.7 pp100 at +8.7 rTS% in the regular season. In the playoffs he dropped to 32.7, +1.1 rTS%, but he did go up against the #1 and #3 defense in the league.

2. Shai Gilgeous Alexander. Top 10 playmaker. Anchored the #3 offense in the league, +5.8 rOrtg. 45.9 pp100 on +6.1 rTS% in the regular season, dropped to 39.2 pp100 on -0.2 rTS% in the playoffs.

3. Tyrese Haliburton. Top 2 passer and top 10 playmaker in the league. 26.6 pp100 on +4 rTS%. Anchored a top 9 offense in the regular season, +2 Ortg, but a top 4 offense in the playoffs, going up against the #1, 8, 12 and 14 defenses in the regular season. 25.3 pp100 at +0.5 rTS%.

DPOY

1. Draymond Green. This should have been Wemnanyama. But, alas. Anchored a -2.8 rDRtg defense. Highly impactful defender on a team without much defensive talent.

2. Ivica Zubac. Breakout season, anchoring a -4.2 rDRtg. Held Jokic well below his season averages in the 7 games.

3. Evan Mobley. Top 8 defense in the league. I want to give a Thunder player the nod, but there is too many to choose from. Caruso was DPOY for the playoffs, but his limited minutes in the regular season hurt him. Dort was great, Chet was great, J Dub was mr Versatile on D. So, I’m giving it to the actual DPOY in Mobley.

POY

1. Shai Gilgeous Alexander. Not the best player in the league, but the combination of his awesome regular season, solid volume scoring in the playoffs gets him the nod ahead of Jokic. Borderline All-Time level season.

2. Nikola Jokic. Amazing season. Was my POY all the way up to the last few games of the finals. But I must give SGA his flowers.

3. Giannis Antetokounmpo. 43pp100, +4.9 rTS% in the regular season, 43.8 pp100 on +7.5 rTS% in the playoffs..

4. Jayson Tatum. 36.9pp100 on +0.6 TS%. 36.6 pp100 on -1 rTS%. The playmaking engine behind the #2 offense. +6.1 rOrtg, and a big part of a top 5 defense, -3.4 rDRtg.

5. Tyrese Haliburton. Neutral on defense, but as my #3 OPOY.


ROY

1. Jaylen Wells. Started 74 games on a playoff team.

2. Risacher. Showed some flashes.

3. Castle. Top rookie scorer outside of McCain. Weak class though.

MIP

1. Evan Mobley. Made the jump to All NBA.

2. Cade Cunningham. Made the jump to All NBA.

3. Ivica Zubac. Argument for him to have been All NBA 3rd team.

6MOY

1. Alex Caruso. The best defender in the league on a per minute basis. 41% from 3 in the playoffs. Big reason why the Thunder got past the Nuggets, and then the Pacers.

2. Payton Pritchard. Impacted the games offensively off the bench. Started and put up some big scoring games, which is the job of a 6th man, to fill in when injuries happen.

3. Ty Jerome. Was a big part of the Cavs league leading offense. Crushed opposing bench lineups when he was on the floor.

COY

1. Deignault. Implemented a terrific defensive system which was a -7 rDRtg, and they were missing a big man for the majority of the season.

2. Carlisle. Great adjustments in the playoffs. Ability to ride his bench when needed to produce some amazing playoff success.

3. Kenny Atkinson. Implemented a great offensive system in Cleveland which led to the Cavs being the #1 offense, at a +7.2 rORtg.

EOY

1. Sam Presti. Traded Giddey for Caruso, signed IHart. 2 players who were instrumental to the eventual champions.

2. Rob Pelinka. He upgraded a top 10 player for a top 5 player. This will keep the Lakers relevant in the post Lebron era.

3. Trajan Langdon. Picked up some vets in Tobias Harris, Malik Beasley. Traded for Schroder who was impactful. They were a few possessions away from beating the Knicks.

Thanks for getting the ball rolling with voting, but please post in the Vote thread if/when you're settled as that's where I'll tally.,

[Doctor MJ]

So, I've posted the Voting thread with pre-approved voters based on participation in this thread.

PM if you're not on the list but are a prior voter in good standing and I'll add you.

If you're not among either group, first I apologize if I omitted you on error, and feel free to PM. But if you know it's not an error, then I'll just encourage you to look to participate with future iteration of projects like this. This is not meant to be an exclusive club, but there are reasons why we're careful about adding voters on the fly.

[Doctor MJ]

So just a bit more thoughts as I've been reflecting the last couple days:

On POY, I'm still going back & forth thinking about the following guys: Hali, Pascal, Tatum, Mitchell, Brunson & Ant - with the first 3 being the guys I'm thinking most about and struggling with.

Starting with Hali, I want to make clear that there's nothing I'm struggling with in terms of my enthusiasm for him as a player. I'm absolutely a believer in the effect he has on his team - while I love watching TJ go to work, you learn a lot watching how the other 4 players change their default mode when a different point guard checks in.

However, his season was inconsistent for a complicated number of reasons, and this is where it really does make sense to argue that he wasn't the MVP of his team on the court this year, Pascal was. Spiritually this is Hali's team, but what Pascal was able to become in adapting to the Hali-centric model is fantastic, and of course it's not just about his offense. While Hali deserves kudos for improving as a defender, Pascal is such a versatile standout.

With Tatum, I had him clearly at the top of this group after the regular season, so the question I try to keep in mind is:

What did other guys do to surpass the guy with the lead? So an example here that's particularly relevant is Tatum vs Mitchell.

Tatum got injured going for 42 points on May 12th.
Mitchell's last game, where he scored 35, was on May 13th.

Honestly, the Celtics getting upset was feeling way worse to me than the Cavs getting upset prior to Tatum's injury. The fact that they were losing to the Knicks with a series of collapses driven not by something uncharacteristic of the team, but something they were very much known for, just hit harder than the Cavs whose clear injury woes literally turned them from favorite to underdog against the Pacers.

But am I really going to say that Mitchell's 1-day-longer post-season achieved so much more than Tatum's that it should trump the regular season? No, I don't think so, because I saw that as both significant and typical for this player comparison.

Okay, but what about Brunson? He was the leader of the team that was doing that to the Celtics, and the whole case for a player like him leading your offense is you don't get collective brain farts the way you can with the Celtics. Tatum injury aside, I think in most universes the Knicks would have lost that series, but in this, Brunson Brunsoned.

But do I favor Brunson over Mitchell or Ant who you might say have a similar sort of resiliency built into their mindset? A whole other analysis you can get into there.

But circling back to the Pacer duo, it's pretty clear the general shape that of the argument that they'd surpassed Tatum and others stems from them having a remarkable run to Game 7 of the Finals. Of course, it's not like I'm in the habit of elevating all finalists above all players on teams eliminated earlier and the mere fact that I'm considering both Hali & Pascal gives voice to an angel (or a devil) on my shoulder saying "You know that the Pacers were all about team, don't try to single out guys from the team simply because the team is remarkable enough you want to trumpet them."

On the other hand, out of any of the guys here,

Which of these guys would I want to build my offense around? Hali.
Which of these guys am I most confident can adapt and tailor his game to make a good team a contender? Pascal.

To me it's not actually hard to make an argument that each Pacer is more worthy than any of the other guys mentioned, but as I then ponder including both in my 5, the angel/devil looks at me with disappointment.

[Doctor MJ]

On OPOY I'm leaning toward a ballot spot for Hali, and on DPOY I'm leaning toward a ballot spot for Caruso.

The choice of Hali is highly debatable, but the Caruso one is definitely the one I myself find to be eyebrow raising.

Something I have to acknowledge both choices have in common: I think these two players are the respective avatars for offense & defense of the NBA playoffs in 2025.

For Hali, he absolutely led the most effective offense of the post-season, whether you mean him being the head of the snake, him playing the most, or him having the most impact. Whatever the box score says, it's a mistake to underestimate the effect he has on how the Pacers play.

For Caruso, well, I would say he's the most impactful per minute defensive player in the league, and him joining OKC both as an elite defender and as a veteran leader had everything to do with why OKC had a defensive season for the ages that propelled them to a chip.

Obviously, the anti-Caruso argument is about minutes, and yeah, the minutes are a huge problem for him as a candidate. I'll consider those a bit while discussing 3 other Thundermen who I feel like have a case to be the avatar of the team's D.

Lu Dort - Dort was the one anointed to be the DPOY candidate for the team this year and I love him! But when I did an EPM VORP analysis for the regular season, among Thundermen he wasn't just behind Jalen Williams, but behind Caruso. The fact then that Caruso stepped up even further in the playoffs just makes it harder for me not to side with Caruso there.

Jalen Williams - Burying the lede I suppose by not mentioning him first given his status in that VORP analysis. He'd have been the guy I put forward from the Thunder after the regular season, and I'm sure he'd still lead the VORP of the team after the playoffs. This then to say that I think choosing JDub over Caruso makes a ton of sense...

and yet, I just find my breath taken away by Caruso in a way it isn't with JDub and I feel a pull to go with Caruso.

Finally Chet Holmgren. Had he been healthy this year, very good chance he'd have won DPOY, and I do feel like going forward he's the guy likely to emerge as the obvious DPOY choice from the team. He's not a candidate this year for me realistically, but still, the spectre of him makes a bit more cautious about championing his teammates to hard here, and I'll say this in particular goes for JDub, because JDub's case is so dependent on him being merely the best defender among the big minute guys, rather than actually being the most impressive defensive player on the floor for his team in any given stint.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah, I think Carlisle should probably be Coach of the Year. The Pacers are a deep team, but getting that team to Game 7 of the Finals represents a massive difference between how well the team has played and what the sum of its parts are. And that’s especially true given how good their Finals opponent is and the fact that they did not have a particularly easy road to the Finals and they only dropped 4 games heading into the Finals. I can’t help but attribute that in large part to the coach, especially when there’s no individual player on the Pacers that has been overwhelmingly better than their norm in these playoffs. It’s somewhat simplistic analysis, but I just think that getting this team to play at this level is extremely impressive from a coaching perspective. My confidence that coaching is a major factor here is also bolstered by the fact that Carlisle has previously won a title with a team that played better than the sum of its parts.

So just wanted to co-sign this in particular because I'm feeling really warm & fuzzy toward hairless Jim Carrey.

What Rick Carlisle has done in his return to Indiana has been amazing, and it's absolutely compounding his legacy.

[eminence]

Only a POY vote this year.

The guys I see as the clear top end guys currently are Jokic/SGA. SGA the notably larger part of the season, so getting my #1 vote. Jokic #2.

The next layer of player for me is Embiid/Giannis/Tatum/Luka. Embiid didn't play, and Luka missed enough time along with ending on his weakest note, so they'll both be off my ballot. Giannis and Tatum both have done enough to be in strong contention. It's a change from some of my past votes in how I've treated PO injuries before, but I do feel I've honestly changed in how I perceive them as part of the season. Sorry to CP3 for some past votes. The best RS from Giannis in the last few years.

Then there's a whole bunch of good All-NBA level guys, but I have a tough time arguing they are better players than the above groups. In kind of reverse order - Ant, strong player, Wolves (and notably Ant) put up the worst showing against the Thunder rounds 2-4. KAT/Brunson - quite a duo, prefer KAT in the RS, Brunson in the POs, not sure who I'd go with overall. Mitchell (narrowly over Mobley), probably my pick for the best player on this tier, but the team kind of blew up around him. Haliburton/Siakam - raw data seems to prefer Siakam, regression/tracking/xpm stuff heavily favors Haliburton in most I've seen. Undecided there as well.

Gut is I should go with Giannis/Tatum some order in 3/4 and then pick a 5th. Probably from Mitchell/Haliburton/Siakam.

[iggymcfrack]

So just a bit more thoughts as I've been reflecting the last couple days:

On POY, I'm still going back & forth thinking about the following guys: Hali, Pascal, Tatum, Mitchell, Brunson & Ant - with the first 3 being the guys I'm thinking most about and struggling with.

Starting with Hali, I want to make clear that there's nothing I'm struggling with in terms of my enthusiasm for him as a player. I'm absolutely a believer in the effect he has on his team - while I love watching TJ go to work, you learn a lot watching how the other 4 players change their default mode when a different point guard checks in.

However, his season was inconsistent for a complicated number of reasons, and this is where it really does make sense to argue that he wasn't the MVP of his team on the court this year, Pascal was. Spiritually this is Hali's team, but what Pascal was able to become in adapting to the Hali-centric model is fantastic, and of course it's not just about his offense. While Hali deserves kudos for improving as a defender, Pascal is such a versatile standout.

With Tatum, I had him clearly at the top of this group after the regular season, so the question I try to keep in mind is:

What did other guys do to surpass the guy with the lead? So an example here that's particularly relevant is Tatum vs Mitchell.

Tatum got injured going for 42 points on May 12th.
Mitchell's last game, where he scored 35, was on May 13th.

Honestly, the Celtics getting upset was feeling way worse to me than the Cavs getting upset prior to Tatum's injury. The fact that they were losing to the Knicks with a series of collapses driven not by something uncharacteristic of the team, but something they were very much known for, just hit harder than the Cavs whose clear injury woes literally turned them from favorite to underdog against the Pacers.

But am I really going to say that Mitchell's 1-day-longer post-season achieved so much more than Tatum's that it should trump the regular season? No, I don't think so, because I saw that as both significant and typical for this player comparison.

Okay, but what about Brunson? He was the leader of the team that was doing that to the Celtics, and the whole case for a player like him leading your offense is you don't get collective brain farts the way you can with the Celtics. Tatum injury aside, I think in most universes the Knicks would have lost that series, but in this, Brunson Brunsoned.

But do I favor Brunson over Mitchell or Ant who you might say have a similar sort of resiliency built into their mindset? A whole other analysis you can get into there.

But circling back to the Pacer duo, it's pretty clear the general shape that of the argument that they'd surpassed Tatum and others stems from them having a remarkable run to Game 7 of the Finals. Of course, it's not like I'm in the habit of elevating all finalists above all players on teams eliminated earlier and the mere fact that I'm considering both Hali & Pascal gives voice to an angel (or a devil) on my shoulder saying "You know that the Pacers were all about team, don't try to single out guys from the team simply because the team is remarkable enough you want to trumpet them."

On the other hand, out of any of the guys here,

Which of these guys would I want to build my offense around? Hali.
Which of these guys am I most confident can adapt and tailor his game to make a good team a contender? Pascal.

To me it's not actually hard to make an argument that each Pacer is more worthy than any of the other guys mentioned, but as I then ponder including both in my 5, the angel/devil looks at me with disappointment.

One thing I think to take note of with the Pacers is that the raw value provided in the clutch by Haliburton is incredible. Like in the NFL, there’s a stat called QBR for QBs that’s basically just like “given the leverage of each situation, how much did this players passes improve the team’s equity compared to a random player”.

Looking at it through that lens, Haliburton came through in spades. Even if you think he and Siakam were similar in value the first 46 minutes of the game, the way Hali was so consistent hitting so many huge shots at such an unprecedentedly high rate makes him provide much more total value to me. In the same say that we’d give a player extra credit for coming though big in Game 7 of a clutch series than in Game 1 of a 1/8 matchup, I think Haliburton having a TS% over .900 on shots to tie or take the lead in the last 2 minutes should provide extra weight as well. It literally might be the most remarkable clutch postseason of all-time.

[Ollie Coraline]

Some people have the belief that the final moments of a game are where all is decided, but I’d like to question that notion. Early-game morale and injuries can do more for the outcome of a game than the final scores. We should look at the bigger picture and relent the notion that intensity means importance.

[The-Power]

Possibly controversial take: I still think Curry was the 3rd best offensive player in the league last year and should be on people's OPOY ballots. Not saying others don't have a case but it's tough to argue that anyone but Jokic and SGA were clearly better on that end.

I'm not sure whether that means he should also be on POY ballots considering his defense slipped and he ended the season with an injury – but I wouldn't rule it out either with how many of the potentially better player also had their season cut short due to injury.

[lessthanjake]

Some people have the belief that the final moments of a game are where all is decided, but I’d like to question that notion. Early-game morale and injuries can do more for the outcome of a game than the final scores. We should look at the bigger picture and relent the notion that intensity means importance.

I generally subscribe to this, but there is one somewhat significant complication here. We know that there’s a rubberband effect, where teams systematically do worse if they’re ahead by a good bit and better if they’re behind. So we’d actually expect some of the value of doing well early in a game to be swallowed by the rubberband effect later. Basically, if you impact the game early, then it will likely result in your team playing worse later in the game, because they’ll either be ahead by more or behind by less. There is no such effect if you do well at the end of the game, since there’s no later moments in the game for the rubberband effect to kick in.

I do think that this is good reason to care more about what happens towards the very end of the game. As a sidenote, it’s also the best reason I can think of to justify taking a player out of the game because of foul trouble. Doing that doesn’t actually make sense if every moment of the game is worth the same amount. After all, you’d maximize a player’s playing time in a game by letting them play until they foul out, rather than limiting their minutes in fear of them fouling out. But if the earlier portions of a game are not worth as much as the portions towards the end of the game (due to the rubberband effect), then you might be better off artificially limiting the number of minutes someone plays in order to ensure they’re there for the more important minutes.