Has Shai passed Luka? If so, when? (impact as a player + all-time)

[bbms]

in impact he's surpassed a couple of seasons ago, there's no metric that puts doncic above sga in impact since 2023-24 and without even factoring availability.

last season shai surpassed doncic in impact imo, but i can see people value the fantasia and flair aspect of doncic over a longer sustained period. well, doncic's been close to a top performer almost from day one and that matters, if doncic retired after 2023-24 season he would be a first ballot HoF, I don't know if SGA would be that before his finals win.

[Doctor MJ]

Shai obviously outplayed Luka in the 2024 series anyone with eyes and the ability to read stats saw that. PJ Washington was the MVP.

Shai has been better for a couple years now in terms of current play. And with his new hardware is pretty close all time.

I won't say PJ was the MVP, but what I will say is that shooting luck is a thing, and PJ hasn't been a consistent shooter on that level before or sense. Luka was part of PJ getting better, but he wasn't such a big part that merely having Luka out there ensured PJ would be better.

[Doctor MJ]

They came into the league the same season, and Luka was definitely better off the jump for the first 3-4 years.

If you go by first 3-4 years, its Luka.
If you go by last 3-4 years, its Shai.
Overall careers, its close to a wash

This is where I'd point out that being the better rookie doesn't matter at all in a comparison between superstars unless the better rookie was actually playing like a superstar...which rookie Luka wasn't.

[ThunderBolt]

the first two years with shai, okc had 22wins and 24wins

,,,,,DOWN FROM 49,44,48,47, and 55 the previous 5ive years

the core of what you see now came came from the draft IN SHAI'S THIRD AND FOURTH YEAR, and okc bumped up to 40wins again

so the answer is a resounding "LUKA"

The reasoning makes no sense and ,,, is not a thing in the English language.

[Cavsfansince84]

Shai obviously outplayed Luka in the 2024 series anyone with eyes and the ability to read stats saw that. PJ Washington was the MVP.

Shai has been better for a couple years now in terms of current play. And with his new hardware is pretty close all time.

I won't say PJ was the MVP, but what I will say is that shooting luck is a thing, and PJ hasn't been a consistent shooter on that level before or sense. Luka was part of PJ getting better, but he wasn't such a big part that merely having Luka out there ensured PJ would be better.

My only thing with this sort of stuff is no one really cares when it works the other way(guys shooting terribly) and like you said, people don't think Luka was a big part of PJ getting those looks? We give a lot of credit to stars for winning and a lot of is beyond the control of the star. Same as Tatum gets a lot of credit for having a ring now but no one cares that Horford, White, Holiday and Hauser shot a combined ~44% from 3 in the finals while Tatum shot 26%. It might be fair to say that Shai outplayed Luka but when one guys leads a 50 win team over the other guy's 57 win team we usually say the other guy got the better of him. Luka's playmaking/offensive lift imo gets underrated a lot, especially in terms of how his teams seem to up their level in the playoffs consistently.

[Lalouie]

the first two years with shai, okc had 22wins and 24wins

,,,,,DOWN FROM 49,44,48,47, and 55 the previous 5ive years

the core of what you see now came came from the draft IN SHAI'S THIRD AND FOURTH YEAR, and okc bumped up to 40wins again

so the answer is a resounding "LUKA"

The reasoning makes no sense and ,,, is not a thing in the English language.

you're an okc fan. you're allowed

if ",,," bothers you. i make no excuses for my syntax/punctuation. no one's asking you to correct grammar. it's not in your purview

[Woodsanity]

Last year he surpassed Luka with a chip.

[Doctor MJ]

Shai obviously outplayed Luka in the 2024 series anyone with eyes and the ability to read stats saw that. PJ Washington was the MVP.

Shai has been better for a couple years now in terms of current play. And with his new hardware is pretty close all time.

I won't say PJ was the MVP, but what I will say is that shooting luck is a thing, and PJ hasn't been a consistent shooter on that level before or sense. Luka was part of PJ getting better, but he wasn't such a big part that merely having Luka out there ensured PJ would be better.

My only thing with this sort of stuff is no one really cares when it works the other way(guys shooting terribly) and like you said, people don't think Luka was a big part of PJ getting those looks? We give a lot of credit to stars for winning and a lot of is beyond the control of the star. Same as Tatum gets a lot of credit for having a ring now but no one cares that Horford, White, Holiday and Hauser shot a combined ~44% from 3 in the finals while Tatum shot 26%. It might be fair to say that Shai outplayed Luka but when one guys leads a 50 win team over the other guy's 57 win team in 6 games we usually say the other guy got the better of him. Luka's playmaking/offensive lift imo gets underrated a lot, especially in terms of how his teams seem to up their level in the playoffs consistently.

I care, and so do serious people. Certainly possible that I over or under index on the positives or the negatives, but I'm certainly not wanting to do that.

Re: "It might be fair to say that Shai outplayed Luka but when one guys leads a 50 win team over the other guy's 57 win team in 6 games we usually say the other guy got the better of him." And I would say that the "we" you're talking about are doing it wrong, and it's kinda as simple as that.

Using better analytical techniques means we're going to deviate from talking-head norms, and from that point onward, you're either disagreeing with the heads, or you're giving up on rigorous analysis because it's not what the heads do.

But as I say all of that:

When we talk about the complicated social concept of "legacy", luck - which is what we're talking about the heads swallowing as not-luck - does play a role. If you never win a chip because your teammate missed a shot at a critical moment that he normally makes, that doesn't change how good a player you were, but can absolutely affect your legacy, because "legacy" is just about what the basketball world thinks it knows, rather than about what it actually knows.

It's feels strange to focus on a field where you can say that actual achievement is not the goal so much as perceived achievement is... but the more we look into it, the more it becomes clear that there is not clear line of separation.

[Cavsfansince84]

I care, and so do serious people. Certainly possible that I over or under index on the positives or the negatives, but I'm certainly not wanting to do that.

Re: "It might be fair to say that Shai outplayed Luka but when one guys leads a 50 win team over the other guy's 57 win team in 6 games we usually say the other guy got the better of him." And I would say that the "we" you're talking about are doing it wrong, and it's kinda as simple as that.

Using better analytical techniques means we're going to deviate from talking-head norms, and from that point onward, you're either disagreeing with the heads, or you're giving up on rigorous analysis because it's not what the heads do.

But as I say all of that:

When we talk about the complicated social concept of "legacy", luck - which is what we're talking about the heads swallowing as not-luck - does play a role. If you never win a chip because your teammate missed a shot at a critical moment that he normally makes, that doesn't change how good a player you were, but can absolutely affect your legacy, because "legacy" is just about what the basketball world thinks it knows, rather than about what it actually knows.

It's feels strange to focus on a field where you can say that actual achievement is not the goal so much as perceived achievement is... but the more we look into it, the more it becomes clear that there is not clear line of separation.

Well, I think the bolded is sort of vague enough to be up for debate tbh. Just as you'd expect a team with strong chemistry to play better in the playoffs than one which doesn't but the thing is that there's no way to truly measure that. Like, do we think its just random variance that Russell's Celtics were like 7-1 in those decisive game 5/7's which included many big shots made in the final seconds? I mean you can qualify this discussion as something different from standard discussion which might be more based in wins and losses but that's also a big part of how why guys like Magic/MJ/Russell get rated so highly is winning. There's just degrees of nuance of course which is what you're referring to and I agree but sometimes nuance also loses sight of what might actually be going on on a bb court when it becomes about variance from norms and where that might be coming from.

[Ron Swanson]

I'm starting to wonder what Luka has actually done to get this kind of benefit of the doubt year after year. First you had the laughable ESPN list and casuals putting him ahead of Giannis, and now we're still acting like SGA hasn't firmly passed him based on peak play (Top-5 SG season ever last year by the numbers) and individual hardware?

Seriously, I'm struggling to understand where Luka's case even starts anymore. Box score rebound and assist numbers? Even the rough lineup data hasn't painted Luka as some crazy impact dude throughout his career. As a historic parallel, it's basically like taking out the one feather in T-Mac's cap over Kobe ('03 season) and STILL trying to argue that McGrady was better.

[Doctor MJ]

the first two years with shai, okc had 22wins and 24wins

,,,,,DOWN FROM 49,44,48,47, and 55 the previous 5ive years

the core of what you see now came came from the draft IN SHAI'S THIRD AND FOURTH YEAR, and okc bumped up to 40wins again

so the answer is a resounding "LUKA"

The reasoning makes no sense and ,,, is not a thing in the English language.

you're an okc fan. you're allowed

if ",,," bothers you. i make no excuses for my syntax/punctuation. no one's asking you to correct grammar. it's not in your purview

Put me down for not having an issue with you using ,,, (comma ellipsis) rather than ... (ellipsis), though I would say it's wise to know that only ... is formal.

Key thing for me is this: Language was built first and foremost on the spoken word which requires no explicit punctuation. Hence, while the written word absolutely needs punctuation, prescriptive rules about right vs wrong punctuation tends to lead to a problematic focus in written communication as we are taught when we are young.

I spent my high school years thinking I was a bad writer because of my teacher's grammar-based rubrics, only to go to college and find my professors didn't care as long as they could understand what I my ideas...which they could without issue, raising the question of why my high school teachers were so focused on something that literally no higher level professors ever cared about.

Speaking as a STEM teacher, my explanation would in ways be "math envy" or "STEM envy". The Humanities wants to look rigorous in the eyes of the non-Humanities world, and rigid rubrics let them appear to achieve this, but while it can be useful in getting novices up to basic competence, overreliance can lead to stifling of writers who are ready to develop their own style.

[SA37]

If we're drafting from scratch and we're starting a franchise from 0, I am taking Doncic.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm starting to wonder what Luka has actually done to get this kind of benefit of the doubt year after year. First you had the laughable ESPN list and casuals putting him ahead of Giannis, and now we're still acting like SGA hasn't firmly passed him based on peak play (Top-5 SG season ever last year by the numbers) and individual hardware?

Seriously, I'm struggling to understand where Luka's case even starts anymore. Box score rebound and assist numbers? Even the rough lineup data hasn't painted Luka as some crazy impact dude throughout his career. As a historic parallel, it's basically like taking out the one feather in T-Mac's cap over Kobe ('03 season) and STILL trying to argue that McGrady was better.

Benefit of the doubt year after year seems like a strange way to compare these two imo. Luka before last year had done way more to get that benefit of the doubt over Shai. He was the one who won Euroleague at 18, was all nba 1st team at 20 and led Dallas from near the bottom to the playoffs by year 2. Also, tbh I'm very high on both guys so to me this isn't arguing one over the other so much as it is just giving my view on what's I've seen over the last 8 years or w/e it is. Shai otoh had to develop a lot more and even in his early prime years was leading Okc teams that were still near the bottom of the league. Which isn't entirely his fault either but at this point if its about 2 year peaks its Shai in a huge way but in terms of career its still pretty close imo. Luka does have 5 all nba 1st teams and a strong finals run under his belt. Both have won 5 playoff series. The mvp/fmvp achievement definitely carries a big weight in a guy's legacy though but the thing is that they're still so young. If Shai gets another ring this year then there's a big gap between them but at the same time if Luka won a ring then it flips back to him.

[Doctor MJ]

I care, and so do serious people. Certainly possible that I over or under index on the positives or the negatives, but I'm certainly not wanting to do that.

Re: "It might be fair to say that Shai outplayed Luka but when one guys leads a 50 win team over the other guy's 57 win team in 6 games we usually say the other guy got the better of him." And I would say that the "we" you're talking about are doing it wrong, and it's kinda as simple as that.

Using better analytical techniques means we're going to deviate from talking-head norms, and from that point onward, you're either disagreeing with the heads, or you're giving up on rigorous analysis because it's not what the heads do.

But as I say all of that:

When we talk about the complicated social concept of "legacy", luck - which is what we're talking about the heads swallowing as not-luck - does play a role. If you never win a chip because your teammate missed a shot at a critical moment that he normally makes, that doesn't change how good a player you were, but can absolutely affect your legacy, because "legacy" is just about what the basketball world thinks it knows, rather than about what it actually knows.

It's feels strange to focus on a field where you can say that actual achievement is not the goal so much as perceived achievement is... but the more we look into it, the more it becomes clear that there is not clear line of separation.

Well, I think the bolded is sort of vague enough to be up for debate tbh. Just as you'd expect a team with strong chemistry to play better in the playoffs than one which doesn't but the thing is that there's no way to truly measure that. Like, do we think its just random variance that Russell's Celtics were like 7-1 in those decisive game 5/7's which included many big shots made in the final seconds? I mean you can qualify this discussion as something different from standard discussion which might be more based in wins and losses but that's also a big part of how why guys like Magic/MJ/Russell get rated so highly is winning. There's just degrees of nuance of course which is what you're referring to and I agree but sometimes nuance also loses sight of what might actually be going on on a bb court when it becomes about variance from norms and where that might be coming from.

I would say good chemistry tends to lead to a team that is more than the sum of its parts and likely to pull close games out, but this doesn't mean that the team who pulled a particular close game out was necessarily the better chemistry team.

And specifically: Good chemistry tends to lead to better shooting generally, but shooting luck is always a thing regardless of that. The safe answer is "we can't be sure" generally, and when we dare to venture further - which I'm not saying we never should - we should proceed with caution.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm starting to wonder what Luka has actually done to get this kind of benefit of the doubt year after year. First you had the laughable ESPN list and casuals putting him ahead of Giannis, and now we're still acting like SGA hasn't firmly passed him based on peak play (Top-5 SG season ever last year by the numbers) and individual hardware?

Seriously, I'm struggling to understand where Luka's case even starts anymore. Box score rebound and assist numbers? Even the rough lineup data hasn't painted Luka as some crazy impact dude throughout his career. As a historic parallel, it's basically like taking out the one feather in T-Mac's cap over Kobe ('03 season) and STILL trying to argue that McGrady was better.

These are quite understandable feelings brought on by a real phenomenon that I'm glad you recognize has historical parallels.

I think the big picture phenomenon here is cognitive dissonance brought on by identity calcification accelerated by putting your opinion out there for the world to see.

If I go all-in on a particular guy being "the next big thing" and THEN he completely blows consensus expectations out of the water soon after, there's a good chance that the future success of that player is something now directly tied to my ego, and if I can't deal with the potential ego death of admitting I went too far previously, I begin to distort reality to make what I previously said remain "right" in my head as it becomes more and more clearly wrong to anyone not caught in the same cult of thought I am.

I don't know what the future will bring with Luka's career, but what I can say is that if Luka never reaches that MVP/Finals MVP tier, we'll have a dwindling minority of folks who hold on as if their life depends on it, because their identity is so tied to what they once predicted would come to pass. There's nothing utterly unique about Luka causing this to happen, but his huge start to his NBA career certainly contributed to it.

[Cavsfansince84]

I would say good chemistry tends to lead to a team that is more than the sum of its parts and likely to pull close games out, but this doesn't mean that the team who pulled a particular close game out was necessarily the better chemistry team.

And specifically: Good chemistry tends to lead to better shooting generally, but shooting luck is always a thing regardless of that. The safe answer is "we can't be sure" generally, and when we dare to venture further - which I'm not saying we never should - we should proceed with caution.

I think chemistry can also be something that comes and goes at times. Like, I would not say it was just coincidence that the Pacers in last year's playoffs kept showing the ability to erase 20 pt leads and just get into the zone the way they did. Sometimes guys just hit their walls and can't get past it. Just like I'd say the 09/10 Cavs had strong chemistry but when push came to shove in the playoffs there's limits to what that can do. Even the Pacers though kept coming at a 68 win team and may have even won that game 7 if Hali hadn't gone down. Think about that for a second re Shai right now and this discussion. It would have been considered a pretty epic choke had that happened, all things considered. Even in the peaks project, he was getting criticism for his playoffs.

[Lalouie]

The reasoning makes no sense and ,,, is not a thing in the English language.

you're an okc fan. you're allowed

if ",,," bothers you. i make no excuses for my syntax/punctuation. no one's asking you to correct grammar. it's not in your purview

Put me down for not having an issue with you using ,,, (comma ellipsis) rather than ... (ellipsis), though I would say it's wise to know that only ... is formal.

Key thing for me is this: Language was built first and foremost on the spoken word which requires no explicit punctuation. Hence, while the written word absolutely needs punctuation, prescriptive rules about right vs wrong punctuation tends to lead to a problematic focus in written communication as we are taught when we are young.

I spent my high school years thinking I was a bad writer because of my teacher's grammar-based rubrics, only to go to college and find my professors didn't care as long as they could understand what I my ideas...which they could without issue, raising the question of why my high school teachers were so focused on something that literally no higher level professors ever cared about.

Speaking as a STEM teacher, my explanation would in ways be "math envy" or "STEM envy". The Humanities wants to look rigorous in the eyes of the non-Humanities world, and rigid rubrics let them appear to achieve this, but while it can be useful in getting novices up to basic competence, overreliance can lead to stifling of writers who are ready to develop their own style.

my syntax emulates the rhythm of my speech pattern. so if there's a series of commas then there's a pause in my actual speaking,,, as in, does everyone talk non stop without a pause here and there. well i don't.

anywho, you should have seen my early on when i used commas in abundance. then i realized that was wayyyy to confusing

[Mavrelous]

I find it odd that we attribute luck to shooting % of PJ when OKC scheme was explicitly to sell out to take away the lob from Luka P&R with Mavs bigs, if extreme defensive coverage is being played, then outlier shooting events tend to occur.
The sell out to take away the lob was done because it was a Luka Doncic P&R, not any other guard.
Luka and SGA are part of the same draft class, Luka was drafted into a team:
1. In draft picks deficit.
2. No meaningful talent on it (except Brunson who broke out in year 4)
3. Despite the pick deficit, team went out and gambled the rest of the future on Porzingis, a gamble that backired
4. Only 1 lottery pick in 7 years #10 in 23.

SGA went later to a team that:
1. Had massive, massive, pick surplus, due to the PG13 and Westbrook trades + selling cap space for picks.
2. Tanked for 2 full year, and got 5 lottery picks (#6 in 2, #2 in 22 and #12 in 23) + #12 in 22 and #12 in 24 from other teams.
3. On generally the best managed team in the league.

This can also be a cause for variance in team success, not as signoficant and PJ shooting luck I guess.

[Lalouie]

I'm starting to wonder what Luka has actually done to get this kind of benefit of the doubt year after year. First you had the laughable ESPN list and casuals putting him ahead of Giannis, and now we're still acting like SGA hasn't firmly passed him based on peak play (Top-5 SG season ever last year by the numbers) and individual hardware?

Seriously, I'm struggling to understand where Luka's case even starts anymore. Box score rebound and assist numbers? Even the rough lineup data hasn't painted Luka as some crazy impact dude throughout his career. As a historic parallel, it's basically like taking out the one feather in T-Mac's cap over Kobe ('03 season) and STILL trying to argue that McGrady was better.

changing a franchise. THAT'S where.

bill russell didn't score 30ppg. he didn't average 10blocks per game either

[Patches Perry]

I find it odd that we attribute luck to shooting % of PJ when OKC scheme was explicitly to sell out to take away the lob from Luka P&R with Mavs bigs, if extreme defensive coverage is being played, then outlier shooting events tend to occur.
The sell out to take away the lob was done because it was a Luka Doncic P&R, not any other guard.

It's worth pointing out that Josh Giddey was also left wide open by Dallas as a matter of scheme (to crowd Shai's driving lanes), and although Giddey shot a better percentage than PJ Washington from 3pt in the regular season, Giddey shot 3-16 (18%) in that series. Many of them wide open. I believe PJ was 23/49 (47%) 3pt in that series. Both had open shots as a matter of scheme, but PJ far outshooting Giddey was more than enough to swing the series given how close several of the games were.

Watch on YouTube