A player whose impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)

[AdagioPace]

14 pages to argue and counter-argue the obvious: that Porzingis is Doncic's Titanic and that Delon Wright, Maxi Kleber, Brunson etc.. are playing good basketball. (I blame myself too with this post)

[KqWIN]

Here's the problem with some of the recent discussion in this thread. When someone says something that isn't a positive about another's favorite player, the reaction is that this an attack on this player for the sake of attacking him. To be fair, this is the nature of a lot of people that use advanced stats are just looking for something that fits their preconceived narrative. That's probably the most common use if we're being honest. There's so much out there, you can always find something that supports what you're saying.

GM and I don't agree on everything, but he argues in good faith. The post was not made to attack Luka. The post was made because Luka happened to raise some red flags with the way he analyzes everyone. If this was Giannis, LeBron, or anyone else, he probably would have made a similar post. It's was something interesting to point out, and even now Luka's on/off +/- shows a different narrative than what's often being put out there. The mere suggestion that the Mavs are positive without Luka, which isn't a suggestion as it is fact, causes a storm.

I get why people are skeptical, but there are people who form arguments and opinions because they believe in the substance and not just because it fits into a preconceived narrative. GM is one of those posters. If the numbers mattered when they are bad, they also matter when they start improving and look good. It's not an argument made for the sake of making Luka bad.

It’s really easy. Anybody, who has watched all 14 games that Mavs played, couldn’t have come out with idea that Luka hasn’t positive impact on the Mavs. And even, if you haven’t watched a single game, 30/10/10, 62.5% TS, 18.5 potential assists...should warned you against making some claims based only on 10 games +/-. Just believing how Luka and Delon have similar impact shows you that something is seriously wrong. What will we say when advanced stats come out and show Luka being extremely positive? Will we say GM was wrong or will we say he’s great guy, just stop attacking him?

This is the point I'm making. If the numbers were good on Luka, GM wouldn't be making this post. If they change, as they have, I'm willing to bet that GM's opinion will also change because it's rooted in the numbers and not some irrational hate for Luka. When people see something that puts their favorite player in a negative light, they treat it as though it's a personal attack on their player and rooted in the rationale presented.

Blindly following the numbers is bad, I'm not saying I agree with GM here. But, blindly supporting a player and not acknowledging any point that doesn't make him out to be the most amazing player ever is really no different.

[KqWIN]

14 pages to argue and counter-argue the obvious: that Porzingis is Doncic's Titanic and that Delon Wright, Maxi Kleber, Brunson etc.. are playing good basketball. (I blame myself too with this post)

This is actually a very good summary

The only problem is that it's too logical and not hot takey enough.

[Ambrose]

GM clearly doesn't like Luka. There are multiple threads of evidence and dozens of posts that confirm that. That's not hating on someone for disagreeing or kissing Luka's ass. It's being honest.

[LipSkinMatter]

Do you even realize what your are saying? Nobody in the NBA right now affects his team as much as Tatum does. The Celtics have the best record in basketball, and Tatum is the guy who is doing the most to accomplish that. Yes, he had a bad (OK really bad) shooting game, any yet he still had a positive affect on the game. Is he perfect? Of course not. Can he improve aspects of his game? Of course. But right now, whenever he's on the floor, he is helping his team win more than anybody else in the league (again, by quite a wide margin). If you think that is over-rated, I don't know what to say. Tatum's reputation is growing quickly this season as not just an offensive player, but as an all-around player. He is one of the better defenders on the team, as well as one of their first choices on the offensive end. The Celtics are a much better team whenever Tatum is on the floor, and yet you seem to think that he is over-rated, or that he's not living up to his reputation. What does he have to do to impress you? Does he need to score 40 points a game? Does he need to average a triple double? Right now he's doing exactly what Boston needs him to do, and he's doing it at an incredible rate (better than any other name you can throw out there). Not only is Tatum living up to his reputation, but he's playing much better than it.

You think Tatum is one of the best players in the NBA? My lawd. I'm a fan of the player but his advanced numbers literally paint him as a league average player. This TS% is hovering around .500 right now. If anything Tatum performing so well in on/off shows you how meaningless it is.

Of course I don't think Tatum is one of the best players in the league (not even close). That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about players who impact the game. When Tatum is on the floor, he has a huge impact on the game. The Celtics are better when he is on the floor by a large amount. Whether it's his offense or his defense or whatever else he does, he helps his team play better by a very large margin. When somebody (like the original poster I responded to) says that he doesn't impact the game that is extremely foolish.
If the name of this thread was "Who is the best player in the league?" and I said Tatum, sure that would be dumb. But it's simply asking which players don't live up to their reputation when it comes to impacting a game, and there is absolutely no way that you can say that Tatum doesn't have a huge impact on the game (which his +/- numbers clearly show).

He is an excellent defender as on/off, defensive win shares, ect will point out. Now just admit he has been average at best on the other end (as of now, he is still a baby) and we're cool.

[Bob8]

Here's the problem with some of the recent discussion in this thread. When someone says something that isn't a positive about another's favorite player, the reaction is that this an attack on this player for the sake of attacking him. To be fair, this is the nature of a lot of people that use advanced stats are just looking for something that fits their preconceived narrative. That's probably the most common use if we're being honest. There's so much out there, you can always find something that supports what you're saying.

GM and I don't agree on everything, but he argues in good faith. The post was not made to attack Luka. The post was made because Luka happened to raise some red flags with the way he analyzes everyone. If this was Giannis, LeBron, or anyone else, he probably would have made a similar post. It's was something interesting to point out, and even now Luka's on/off +/- shows a different narrative than what's often being put out there. The mere suggestion that the Mavs are positive without Luka, which isn't a suggestion as it is fact, causes a storm.

I get why people are skeptical, but there are people who form arguments and opinions because they believe in the substance and not just because it fits into a preconceived narrative. GM is one of those posters. If the numbers mattered when they are bad, they also matter when they start improving and look good. It's not an argument made for the sake of making Luka bad.

It’s really easy. Anybody, who has watched all 14 games that Mavs played, couldn’t have come out with idea that Luka hasn’t positive impact on the Mavs. And even, if you haven’t watched a single game, 30/10/10, 62.5% TS, 18.5 potential assists...should warned you against making some claims based only on 10 games +/-. Just believing how Luka and Delon have similar impact shows you that something is seriously wrong. What will we say when advanced stats come out and show Luka being extremely positive? Will we say GM was wrong or will we say he’s great guy, just stop attacking him?

This is the point I'm making. If the numbers were good on Luka, GM wouldn't be making this post. If they change, as they have, I'm willing to bet that GM's opinion will also change because it's rooted in the numbers and not some irrational hate for Luka. When people see something that puts their favorite player in a negative light, they treat it as though it's a personal attack on their player and rooted in the rationale presented.

Blindly following the numbers is bad, I'm not saying I agree with GM here. But, blindly supporting a player and not acknowledging any point that doesn't make him out to be the most amazing player ever is really no different.

Exactly there lies the problem. How should I acknowledge the point, which is so obviously wrong?

1. Method is wrong, because +/- cannot measure single player impact.
2. 10 games is absolutely to small data for that kind of violative stats like +/-, even if you believe in it, which I don’t.
3. What we can see in the court, is exactly the opposite to what GM is saying. Luka is serious candidate for MVP at the moment. (I’m first to say that his incredible high level of playing is unsuitable, because he’s too young and his conditioning is not good enough to play like that the whole season, but he’s really playing like MVP candidate at the moment.) 30/10/10, 62.5 TS%, the best BPM, VORP, breaking all kind of records, leading 1 of the best offenses (his offrtg is 115.5) in the league and Dallas being 9/5.

Sorry, but I couldn’t care less for +/-.

[KqWIN]

It’s really easy. Anybody, who has watched all 14 games that Mavs played, couldn’t have come out with idea that Luka hasn’t positive impact on the Mavs. And even, if you haven’t watched a single game, 30/10/10, 62.5% TS, 18.5 potential assists...should warned you against making some claims based only on 10 games +/-. Just believing how Luka and Delon have similar impact shows you that something is seriously wrong. What will we say when advanced stats come out and show Luka being extremely positive? Will we say GM was wrong or will we say he’s great guy, just stop attacking him?

This is the point I'm making. If the numbers were good on Luka, GM wouldn't be making this post. If they change, as they have, I'm willing to bet that GM's opinion will also change because it's rooted in the numbers and not some irrational hate for Luka. When people see something that puts their favorite player in a negative light, they treat it as though it's a personal attack on their player and rooted in the rationale presented.

Blindly following the numbers is bad, I'm not saying I agree with GM here. But, blindly supporting a player and not acknowledging any point that doesn't make him out to be the most amazing player ever is really no different.

Exactly there lies the problem. How should I acknowledge the point, which is so obviously wrong?

1. Method is wrong, because +/- cannot measure single player impact.
2. 10 games is absolutely to small data for that kind of violative stats like +/-, even if you believe in it, which I don’t.
3. What we can see in the court, is exactly the opposite to what GM is saying. Luka is serious candidate for MVP at the moment. (I’m first to say that his incredible high level of playing is unsuitable, because he’s too young and his conditioning is not good enough to play like that the whole season, but he’s really playing like MVP candidate at the moment.) 30/10/10, 62.5 TS%, the best BPM, VORP, breaking all kind of records, leading 1 of the best offenses (his offrtg is 115.5) in the league and Dallas being 9/5.

Sorry, but I couldn’t care less for +/-.

I'm not the analysis police, you can do whatever you want. I'm just saying we're too quick to dismiss points that work against our existing beliefs. Again, I'm not saying I 100% agree with GM. I've had lengthy discussions about why I think his method is poor. But I thought he brought up a good point. It's fair to acknowledge how well lineups with Luka have fared and how well lineups without Luka have fared. Is there a direct line from that to impact? I don't think so, but I also don't think it has no relevance at all.

I talked about this a bit in the MVP thread, but there's a narrative that Luka is the only thing the Mavs have going for them. That's not true. They have a great bench and that has lead to a lot of wins.

[Imon]

This has got to be one of the most cancerous threads in RealGM history - let it die.

[Joshyjess]

You think Tatum is one of the best players in the NBA? My lawd. I'm a fan of the player but his advanced numbers literally paint him as a league average player. This TS% is hovering around .500 right now. If anything Tatum performing so well in on/off shows you how meaningless it is.

Of course I don't think Tatum is one of the best players in the league (not even close). That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about players who impact the game. When Tatum is on the floor, he has a huge impact on the game. The Celtics are better when he is on the floor by a large amount. Whether it's his offense or his defense or whatever else he does, he helps his team play better by a very large margin. When somebody (like the original poster I responded to) says that he doesn't impact the game that is extremely foolish.
If the name of this thread was "Who is the best player in the league?" and I said Tatum, sure that would be dumb. But it's simply asking which players don't live up to their reputation when it comes to impacting a game, and there is absolutely no way that you can say that Tatum doesn't have a huge impact on the game (which his +/- numbers clearly show).

He is an excellent defender as on/off, defensive win shares, ect will point out. Now just admit he has been average at best on the other end (as of now, he is still a baby) and we're cool.

21 points a game is far from average (it's 7 points more a game than "Super Star" Simmons is averaging ). So no, I won't admit that Tatum is "at best" average on offense. He's already an extremely good offensive player (most of the time), who still has a ton of room for improvement. Is he a Super-Star? Of course not. Is he an All-star? Not yet, but I think he will see more than his share of All-Star game in the future. Does he impact the game when he plays - 100%

[GeorgeMarcus]

GM clearly doesn't like Luka. There are multiple threads of evidence and dozens of posts that confirm that. That's not hating on someone for disagreeing or kissing Luka's ass. It's being honest.

Not gonna lie, this is an irritating post. As an authority over myself I know it's completely untrue.

The only reasons I can think of for you saying that are (a) preferring Embiid/Simmons to Doncic/KP and (b) my opinion that Simmons/Doncic was a toss up going into the season. I still wholeheartedly agree with the former, but based on Luka's start to the season I now take him over Ben. That doesn't mean I feel badly about my assessment before the season, because Ben was better just last year. The transition from rookie to sophomore season is more unpredictable than any other.

Without providing posts to defend such a claim, you shouldn't be making it in the first place. I'm not an agenda poster and frankly I take offense to the accusation. Maybe you were misled by the narrative being painted by my friend BoB, but other than that I have no idea why you would say that.

Marcus never liked Doncic. You can write in a polite way, try to "uncover" the magic behind player impact using +/- as the true measure, this fact won't change. The fact that we even had a lot of people agreeing with him in this post is laughabe.

Sometimes I wonder how many people really watch games in this forum, to someone think that THJ and Delon are more impactful players on that team haha. I'll glad bump this thread by the end of the season, already knowing he'll be locked, like some recent topics with terrible assertments from mods.

What's laughable is your lack of comprehension to think I ever said THJ/Delon are more impactful. But more importantly, read my above response to Ambrose. If you can't back it up with evidence then don't say it. I know for a fact it's untrue, so out of genuine curiosity I'd like to know what compelled you to make that accusation.

Also idk what you're implying about locking threads. If that was my intention I would have done so already. All kinds of false accusations floating around... If you can't back it up, don't say it.

[Bob8]

This is the point I'm making. If the numbers were good on Luka, GM wouldn't be making this post. If they change, as they have, I'm willing to bet that GM's opinion will also change because it's rooted in the numbers and not some irrational hate for Luka. When people see something that puts their favorite player in a negative light, they treat it as though it's a personal attack on their player and rooted in the rationale presented.

Blindly following the numbers is bad, I'm not saying I agree with GM here. But, blindly supporting a player and not acknowledging any point that doesn't make him out to be the most amazing player ever is really no different.

Exactly there lies the problem. How should I acknowledge the point, which is so obviously wrong?

1. Method is wrong, because +/- cannot measure single player impact.
2. 10 games is absolutely to small data for that kind of violative stats like +/-, even if you believe in it, which I don’t.
3. What we can see in the court, is exactly the opposite to what GM is saying. Luka is serious candidate for MVP at the moment. (I’m first to say that his incredible high level of playing is unsuitable, because he’s too young and his conditioning is not good enough to play like that the whole season, but he’s really playing like MVP candidate at the moment.) 30/10/10, 62.5 TS%, the best BPM, VORP, breaking all kind of records, leading 1 of the best offenses (his offrtg is 115.5) in the league and Dallas being 9/5.

Sorry, but I couldn’t care less for +/-.

I'm not the analysis police, you can do whatever you want. I'm just saying we're too quick to dismiss points that work against our existing beliefs. Again, I'm not saying I 100% agree with GM. I've had lengthy discussions about why I think his method is poor. But I thought he brought up a good point. It's fair to acknowledge how well lineups with Luka have fared and how well lineups without Luka have fared. Is there a direct line from that to impact? I don't think so, but I also don't think it has no relevance at all.

I talked about this a bit in the MVP thread, but there's a narrative that Luka is the only thing the Mavs have going for them. That's not true. They have a great bench and that has lead to a lot of wins.

Basketball is a team sport and everyone is important for winning. But if you look at Dallas starters, knowing that KP is still recovering, it’s quite obvious how important Luka is for the Mavs. Mavs starting 5 without Luka and normal KP is for sure one of the worst in the league, but they’re still hanging in with all teams with much better starting 5. Why? Because Luka has incredible start of the season. Lets say that Luka hasn’t positive impact and put him out. Who will replace 30/10/10 on great efficiency in only 34 minutes, playing against the best defenders and double teams? And that’s exactly the right question, when you’re saying that a player is not positive for the team. Who would do better? It looks to me not many. Prime LeBron might be better though.

[Garbagelo]

I have a similar study set up going on when I ran an analysis on my Knicks over the past few years. Only difference is it takes wins and losses into account.

I will run it on Luka and the Mavs when I get a chance.

[KqWIN]

Exactly there lies the problem. How should I acknowledge the point, which is so obviously wrong?

1. Method is wrong, because +/- cannot measure single player impact.
2. 10 games is absolutely to small data for that kind of violative stats like +/-, even if you believe in it, which I don’t.
3. What we can see in the court, is exactly the opposite to what GM is saying. Luka is serious candidate for MVP at the moment. (I’m first to say that his incredible high level of playing is unsuitable, because he’s too young and his conditioning is not good enough to play like that the whole season, but he’s really playing like MVP candidate at the moment.) 30/10/10, 62.5 TS%, the best BPM, VORP, breaking all kind of records, leading 1 of the best offenses (his offrtg is 115.5) in the league and Dallas being 9/5.

Sorry, but I couldn’t care less for +/-.

I'm not the analysis police, you can do whatever you want. I'm just saying we're too quick to dismiss points that work against our existing beliefs. Again, I'm not saying I 100% agree with GM. I've had lengthy discussions about why I think his method is poor. But I thought he brought up a good point. It's fair to acknowledge how well lineups with Luka have fared and how well lineups without Luka have fared. Is there a direct line from that to impact? I don't think so, but I also don't think it has no relevance at all.

I talked about this a bit in the MVP thread, but there's a narrative that Luka is the only thing the Mavs have going for them. That's not true. They have a great bench and that has lead to a lot of wins.

Basketball is a team sport and everyone is important for winning. But if you look at Dallas starters, knowing that KP is still recovering, it’s quite obvious how important Luka is the Mavs. Mavs starting 5 without Luka and normal KP is for sure one of the worst in the league, but they’re still hanging in with all teams with much better starting 5. Why? Because Luka has incredible start of the season. Lets say that Luka hasn’t positive impact and put him out. Who will replace 30/10/10 on great efficiency in only 34 minutes playing against the best defenders and double teams?

I am not making the argument that Luka is not impactful. But his lineups haven't done amazingly well, both from a raw on/off standpoint and adjusted for teammate/opponent. It's only fair to acknowledge that. I don't think speaking in absolutes where you're either completely for or against a player is good discussion.

I think Luka's great, that doesn't mean I must think impact only numbers are useless because Luka's are very much mediocre. The way you're team performs relative to the opponent and teammates will always have meaning to me.

[Bob8]

I'm not the analysis police, you can do whatever you want. I'm just saying we're too quick to dismiss points that work against our existing beliefs. Again, I'm not saying I 100% agree with GM. I've had lengthy discussions about why I think his method is poor. But I thought he brought up a good point. It's fair to acknowledge how well lineups with Luka have fared and how well lineups without Luka have fared. Is there a direct line from that to impact? I don't think so, but I also don't think it has no relevance at all.

I talked about this a bit in the MVP thread, but there's a narrative that Luka is the only thing the Mavs have going for them. That's not true. They have a great bench and that has lead to a lot of wins.

Basketball is a team sport and everyone is important for winning. But if you look at Dallas starters, knowing that KP is still recovering, it’s quite obvious how important Luka is the Mavs. Mavs starting 5 without Luka and normal KP is for sure one of the worst in the league, but they’re still hanging in with all teams with much better starting 5. Why? Because Luka has incredible start of the season. Lets say that Luka hasn’t positive impact and put him out. Who will replace 30/10/10 on great efficiency in only 34 minutes playing against the best defenders and double teams?

I am not making the argument that Luka is not impactful. But his lineups haven't done amazingly well, both from a raw on/off standpoint and adjusted for teammate/opponent. It's only fair to acknowledge that. I don't think speaking in absolutes where you're either completely for or against a player is good discussion.

I think Luka's great, that doesn't mean I must think impact only numbers are useless because Luka's are very much mediocre. The way you're team performs relative to the opponent and teammates will always have meaning to me.

So you don’t agree that teammates you’re playing with have direct impact on your +/-? What happens with Luka’s +/- if we change KP with AD? Or what happens with LeBron numbers if we put him in Dallas team instead of Luka?

[KqWIN]

Basketball is a team sport and everyone is important for winning. But if you look at Dallas starters, knowing that KP is still recovering, it’s quite obvious how important Luka is the Mavs. Mavs starting 5 without Luka and normal KP is for sure one of the worst in the league, but they’re still hanging in with all teams with much better starting 5. Why? Because Luka has incredible start of the season. Lets say that Luka hasn’t positive impact and put him out. Who will replace 30/10/10 on great efficiency in only 34 minutes playing against the best defenders and double teams?

I am not making the argument that Luka is not impactful. But his lineups haven't done amazingly well, both from a raw on/off standpoint and adjusted for teammate/opponent. It's only fair to acknowledge that. I don't think speaking in absolutes where you're either completely for or against a player is good discussion.

I think Luka's great, that doesn't mean I must think impact only numbers are useless because Luka's are very much mediocre. The way you're team performs relative to the opponent and teammates will always have meaning to me.

So you don’t agree that teammates you’re playing with have direct impact on your +/-. What happens with Luka’s +/- if we change KP with AD?

I just said relative to teammate and opponent. Did you miss that part? When you adjust for teammate and opponent, Luka's lineups are very much mediocre. Theses aren't perfect, but it's enough to say that his lineups aren't doing as well as I would expect based on his numbers, which are undoubtedly MVP level. Now, there's a lot of room between being not impactful and not MVP level. I'd say Luka is just below MVP caliber right now.

[Bob8]

I am not making the argument that Luka is not impactful. But his lineups haven't done amazingly well, both from a raw on/off standpoint and adjusted for teammate/opponent. It's only fair to acknowledge that. I don't think speaking in absolutes where you're either completely for or against a player is good discussion.

I think Luka's great, that doesn't mean I must think impact only numbers are useless because Luka's are very much mediocre. The way you're team performs relative to the opponent and teammates will always have meaning to me.

So you don’t agree that teammates you’re playing with have direct impact on your +/-. What happens with Luka’s +/- if we change KP with AD?

I just said relative to teammate and opponent. Did you miss that part? When you adjust for teammate and opponent, Luka's lineups are very much mediocre. Theses aren't perfect, but it's enough to say that his lineups aren't doing as well as I would expect based on his numbers, which are undoubtedly MVP level. Now, there's a lot of room between being not impactful and not MVP level. I'd say Luka is just below MVP caliber right now.

And I can agree with you. Not because of his offense, which is elite, because of his D. But that isn’t what Marcus has said.

[GeorgeMarcus]

So you don’t agree that teammates you’re playing with have direct impact on your +/-. What happens with Luka’s +/- if we change KP with AD?

I just said relative to teammate and opponent. Did you miss that part? When you adjust for teammate and opponent, Luka's lineups are very much mediocre. Theses aren't perfect, but it's enough to say that his lineups aren't doing as well as I would expect based on his numbers, which are undoubtedly MVP level. Now, there's a lot of room between being not impactful and not MVP level. I'd say Luka is just below MVP caliber right now.

And I can agree with you. Not because of his offense, which is elite, because of his D. But that isn’t what Marcus has said.

You've been misrepresenting my conclusion for so long that I don't think you actually have a grasp of it. Never said he was a negative impact player, or anything close to that, which we've gone over relentlessly already.

[Bob8]

I just said relative to teammate and opponent. Did you miss that part? When you adjust for teammate and opponent, Luka's lineups are very much mediocre. Theses aren't perfect, but it's enough to say that his lineups aren't doing as well as I would expect based on his numbers, which are undoubtedly MVP level. Now, there's a lot of room between being not impactful and not MVP level. I'd say Luka is just below MVP caliber right now.

And I can agree with you. Not because of his offense, which is elite, because of his D. But that isn’t what Marcus has said.

You've been misrepresenting my conclusion for so long that I don't think you actually have a grasp of it. Never said he was a negative impact player, or anything close to that, which we've gone over relentlessly already.

And you for sure didn’t say he’s top10 player, what just below MVP caliber implies.

[KqWIN]

So you don’t agree that teammates you’re playing with have direct impact on your +/-. What happens with Luka’s +/- if we change KP with AD?

I just said relative to teammate and opponent. Did you miss that part? When you adjust for teammate and opponent, Luka's lineups are very much mediocre. Theses aren't perfect, but it's enough to say that his lineups aren't doing as well as I would expect based on his numbers, which are undoubtedly MVP level. Now, there's a lot of room between being not impactful and not MVP level. I'd say Luka is just below MVP caliber right now.

And I can agree with you. But that isn’t what Marcus has said.

And I consistently said I don't completely agree with what GM said. My point was that it's unfair to dismiss anything that doesn't align with your existing beliefs is agenda based. In many cases, the opposite is happening. I said this a lot in the player ranking threads, but if something matters when it's about your favorite player, it should also matter about other players.

In this case, the way your team performs matters a lot to GM. I don't think GM is crazy for valuing these things. I also think the extent to which carrying Luka the Mavericks is a little overblown. The fact that the Mavericks have a very good bench and good depth doesn't get enough credit when it comes to that 9-5 record.

[Bob8]

I just said relative to teammate and opponent. Did you miss that part? When you adjust for teammate and opponent, Luka's lineups are very much mediocre. Theses aren't perfect, but it's enough to say that his lineups aren't doing as well as I would expect based on his numbers, which are undoubtedly MVP level. Now, there's a lot of room between being not impactful and not MVP level. I'd say Luka is just below MVP caliber right now.

And I can agree with you. But that isn’t what Marcus has said.

And I consistently said I don't completely agree with what GM said. My point was that it's unfair to dismiss anything that doesn't align with your existing beliefs is agenda based. In many cases, the opposite is happening. I said this a lot in the player ranking threads, but if something matters when it's about your favorite player, it should also matter about other players.

In this case, the way your team performs matters a lot to GM. I don't think GM is crazy for valuing these things. I also think the extent to which carrying Luka the Mavericks is a little overblown. The fact that the Mavericks have a very good bench and good depth doesn't get enough credit when it comes to that 9-5 record.

I have nothing against you and yes, bench is important for every team. If nothing else, Dallas bench has directly won a game against Denver. My problem with Marcus is, that he used only +/- and totally discarded Luka’s historically great counting stats and efficiency. Marcus might not like BPM or VORP, but having near 14 BPM is for sure not something you can normally see by any player and is totally unique by 20 years old player.