2022-23 RealGM All-Season Awards - Discussion Thread

[Doctor MJ]

Could you elaborate more on why you think his leap has been comparatively less (especially compared to someone like Fox, or even SGA)?

If we compare Haliburton this year compared to what he did in Indiana last year:

PPG 17.5 -> 20.7
APG 9.6 -> 10.4
TS% 62.9 -> 62.4
PER 20.5 -> 23.6

SGA year to year:

PPG 24.5 -> 31.4
TS% 55.7 -> 62.6
PER 20.9 -> 27.2

Fox year to year:

PPG 23.2 -> 25.0
TS% 54.9 -> 59.9
PER 17.8 -> 21.8

Honestly, I could see the argument for Haliburton over Fox, but I think it's pretty clear that Haliburton's box score leap is really not the same thing as SGA's.

Now, I'm a big +/- guy so that could make up for this, but I don't really see anything that drastic there either.

Fox was similar in 2021 as he is this year. Does him having a down year in 2022 make him a most improved player in 2023?

To be clear: The question of how much a player actually improved, compared to what was about shift in context, is always a really tough question. I'm all for having that discussion in part because I'd like to learn from what others see.

But a) Fox did take a leap forward in efficiency this year compared to what he had done in any year before, and b) he's now doing in on the best offense in the league.

If you had asked me prior to this year who I thought was better, Fox or Haliburton, I'd have said Haliburton. I was very skeptical of Fox being able to scale to a truly great team offense, and he proved me wrong.

Now I'm honestly not sure who I'd want between the two, so for me, Fox has gained more than Haliburton in the past year.

But also to be clear: I didn't include Fox on my 3-man ballot, so let's not get too hung up on my take on Fox.

[The-Power]

Haliburton - love him but honestly his leap forward seems a bit less than some other guys

Could you elaborate more on why you think his leap has been comparatively less (especially compared to someone like Fox, or even SGA)?

If we compare Haliburton this year compared to what he did in Indiana last year:

PPG 17.5 -> 20.7
APG 9.6 -> 10.4
TS% 62.9 -> 62.4
PER 20.5 -> 23.6

SGA year to year:

PPG 24.5 -> 31.4
TS% 55.7 -> 62.6
PER 20.9 -> 27.2

Fox year to year:

PPG 23.2 -> 25.0
TS% 54.9 -> 59.9
PER 17.8 -> 21.8

Honestly, I could see the argument for Haliburton over Fox, but I think it's pretty clear that Haliburton's box score leap is really not the same thing as SGA's.

Now, I'm a big +/- guy so that could make up for this, but I don't really see anything that drastic there either.

Hm, I think a bit more context is needed here. For starters, Haliburton played higher minutes for IND last year. 36.1 MPG to 33.6 MPG. So naturally, the counting stats are affected by that but MPG – at least when it is just about a couple minutes – is not related to ability or improvement in one's game. So for starters, I'd use per 100 possession numbers to compare the boxscore.

23.7 -> 29.2 PTS (+5.5)
13.0 -> 14.7 AST (+1.7)

Now, an important thing that was not listed but I consider crucial here are turnovers.

4.4 -> 3.6 TOV (-1.2)

Now, you can argue that this had more to do with familiarity than genuine improvement, that'd be fair. But anytime someone increases APG while decreasing their TOPG, that jumps out to me and is very often related to personal improvement and better adjustment to the NBA.

At least partially as a result of that, Haliburton had a massive improvement in BPM (which I think is usually more useful than PER even though it is also flawed).

2.8 -> 7.2 BPM (+4.4)

That's quite a massive spike that not even SGA (+3.9) or Fox (+3.1) have matched. And it also bears mentioning that especially compared to Fox, Haliburton jumped to massively higher heights. If taken at face value (although I'm not arguing that we should), it would mean that Haliburton's jump may be even more impressive because he reached heights that Fox just never did.

If we look at raw plus minus, Haliburton's on-court net rating went from -6.5 to -1.3 (+5.2) and his on-off net rating went from -3.2 to +4.1 (+7.3). Fox and SGA had bigger jumps in terms of on-court net rating but smaller ones in terms of on-off net rating. But I'm generally cautious about those raw numbers over a single season at that, so I'm inclined to not draw too many conclusions from it. One thing that stands out beyond the plus-minus numbers is that IND played at a .500 pace in games that Haliburton played in (28-28 record). They went 7-19 without him. Granted, some of that was due to late-season tanking but that team really had no business in playing .500 basketball for much of the season if not for Haliburton's performances.

Also, you – and now I – are comparing Haliburton this season not to Haliburton last season (as we do for every other prospect) but to around a third of last season. Now, I do understand why we did that. Because his role changed, so if we want to alleviate the impact of role on numbers, it makes sense to only look at his time at IND. But still, that's not unproblematic. First, it's merely 26 games. Second, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison with other players. Yes, changing teams is a drastic change but we also don't account for potential role changes for SGA or Fox in the previous year. And lo and behold, both SGA and Fox had slightly higher usage at slightly better efficiency post All-Star break. Not nearly as significant as Haliburton, but enough to at least have some effect on the season-to-season comparison.

So I'm not very comfortable completing disregarding two-thirds of Haliburton's previous season as if it didn't happen and only look at his time in IND, even though I understand the impulse. But it's still not what we do for every other candidate for the award. And once you factor in his time in SAC, the improvement in terms of numbers is even greater (considerably so in some respects, actually).

I haven't looked into the various all-in-one metrics (LEBRON, RAPTOR, EPM, RAPM, RPM, etc.) yet but maybe I'll do that at some point later. Still, at this point I'm very confident in having Haliburton in the conversation. Neither SGA nor (especially) Fox, I think, have demonstrated clearly different levels of improvement to have them in a different tier.

edit: And one more thing to point out: Haliburton's boxscore production led to efficient offense. His 118.4 on-court ORTG (according to bbref) would be ranked 2nd (!) in the entire NBA. Now, that IND team was slanting towards offense as a whole but it's still not all that talented to be ranked that high if not for an awesome offensive player in the driver's seat. And the fact that the team was 6.3 points per 100 worse on offense with Haliburton on the bench (which would rank 25th in the NBA) speaks to that.

And while Fox and SGA have similar on-off ORTG numbers, only SGA and Haliburton are the obvious drivers for that on their team. On the Kings, Fox has the best on-off ORTG numbers but it's much closer to the numbers of the other starters (except Murray) so that it's less clear that Fox is the primary driver instead of other players (Sabonis, Huerter) or the entire starting five as a unit with credit shared more equally between all of them.

[Doctor MJ]

Could you elaborate more on why you think his leap has been comparatively less (especially compared to someone like Fox, or even SGA)?

If we compare Haliburton this year compared to what he did in Indiana last year:

PPG 17.5 -> 20.7
APG 9.6 -> 10.4
TS% 62.9 -> 62.4
PER 20.5 -> 23.6

SGA year to year:

PPG 24.5 -> 31.4
TS% 55.7 -> 62.6
PER 20.9 -> 27.2

Fox year to year:

PPG 23.2 -> 25.0
TS% 54.9 -> 59.9
PER 17.8 -> 21.8

Honestly, I could see the argument for Haliburton over Fox, but I think it's pretty clear that Haliburton's box score leap is really not the same thing as SGA's.

Now, I'm a big +/- guy so that could make up for this, but I don't really see anything that drastic there either.

Hm, I think a bit more context is needed here. For starters, Haliburton played higher minutes for IND last year. 36.1 MPG to 33.6 MPG. So naturally, the counting stats are affected by that but MPG – at least when it is just about a couple minutes – is not related to ability or improvement in one's game. So for starters, I'd use per 100 possession numbers to compare the boxscore.

23.7 -> 29.2 PTS (+5.5)
13.0 -> 14.7 AST (+1.7)

Now, an important thing that was not listed but I consider crucial here are turnovers.

4.4 -> 3.6 TOV (-1.2)

Now, you can argue that this had more to do with familiarity than genuine improvement, that'd be fair. But anytime someone increases APG while decreasing their TOPG, that jumps out to me and is very often related to personal improvement and better adjustment to the NBA.

At least partially as a result of that, Haliburton had a massive improvement in BPM (which I think is usually more useful than PER even though it is also flawed).

2.8 -> 7.2 BPM (+4.4)

That's quite a massive spike that not even SGA (+3.9) or Fox (+3.1) have matched. And it also bears mentioning that especially compared to Fox, Haliburton jumped to massively higher heights. If taken at face value (although I'm not arguing that we should), it would mean that Haliburton's jump may be even more impressive because he reached heights that Fox just never did.

If we look at raw plus minus, Haliburton's on-court net rating went from -6.5 to -1.3 (+5.2) and his on-off net rating went from -3.2 to +4.1 (+7.3). Fox and SGA had bigger jumps in terms of on-court net rating but smaller ones in terms of on-off net rating. But I'm generally cautious about those raw numbers over a single season at that, so I'm inclined to not draw too many conclusions from it. One thing that stands out beyond the plus-minus numbers is that IND played at a .500 pace in games that Haliburton played in (28-28 record). They went 7-19 without him. Granted, some of that was due to late-season tanking but that team really had no business in playing .500 basketball for much of the season if not for Haliburton's performances.

Good points.

Also, you – and now I – are comparing Haliburton this season not to Haliburton last season (as we do for every other prospect) but to around a third of last season. Now, I do understand why we did that. Because his role changed, so if we want to alleviate the impact of role on numbers, it makes sense to only look at his time at IND. But still, that's not unproblematic. First, it's merely 26 games. Second, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison with other players. Yes, changing teams is a drastic change but we also don't account for potential role changes for SGA or Fox in the previous year. And lo and behold, both SGA and Fox had slightly higher usage at slightly better efficiency post All-Star break. Not nearly as significant as Haliburton, but enough to at least have some effect on the season-to-season comparison.

So I'm not very comfortable completing disregarding two-thirds of Haliburton's previous season as if it didn't happen and only look at his time in IND, even though I understand the impulse. But it's still not what we do for every other candidate for the award. And once you factor in his time in SAC, the improvement in terms of numbers is even greater (considerably so in some respects, actually).

Fine for you to bring up and fine for you to interpret it differently from me.

I haven't looked into the various all-in-one metrics (LEBRON, RAPTOR, EPM, RAPM, RPM, etc.) yet but maybe I'll do that at some point later. Still, at this point I'm very confident in having Haliburton in the conversation. Neither SGA nor (especially) Fox, I think, have demonstrated clearly different levels of improvement to have them in a different tier.

edit: And one more thing to point out: Haliburton's boxscore production led to efficient offense. His 118.4 on-court ORTG (according to bbref) would be ranked 2nd (!) in the entire NBA. Now, that IND team was slanting towards offense as a whole but it's still not all that talented to be ranked that high if not for an awesome offensive player in the driver's seat. And the fact that the team was 6.3 points per 100 worse on offense with Haliburton on the bench (which would rank 25th in the NBA) speaks to that.

And while Fox and SGA have similar on-off ORTG numbers, only SGA and Haliburton are the obvious drivers for that on their team. On the Kings, Fox has the best on-off ORTG numbers but it's much closer to the numbers of the other starters (except Murray) so that it's less clear that Fox is the primary driver instead of other players (Sabonis, Huerter) or the entire starting five as a unit with credit shared more equally between all of them.

I think you've made good points in general. One thing though:

Re: "Haliburton's boxscore production led to efficient offense"...this is true of all of these guys, with Fox's on-court ORtg being considerably higher.

Not saying this is everything, and you can certainly argue that Haliburton's more impressive because he has less help, but it's a pretty big deal to me seeing Fox have the numbers he does. As I've said, I'm eating crow on Fox.

[The-Power]

I think you've made good points in general. One thing though:

Re: "Haliburton's boxscore production led to efficient offense"...this is true of all of these guys, with Fox's on-court ORtg being considerably higher.

Not saying this is everything, and you can certainly argue that Haliburton's more impressive because he has less help, but it's a pretty big deal to me seeing Fox have the numbers he does. As I've said, I'm eating crow on Fox.

It's absolutely true that it holds for all three guys. I just thought it was worth pointing out that Haliburton didn't just have great offensive numbers on a terrible offensive team because that would obviously be an argument against his case, or at least could be. It also makes sense to point it out as for the award, Haliburton's competition – as you pointed out already – isn't just, or even primarily, these two other Guards.

RE: Fox. I agree and it took me as a surprise that Fox can be a key player on an elite offense. So I'm happily eating some crow, too. But I still think it's worth pondering over whether Fox was the same kind of catalyst for his team that SGA and Haliburton were for their teams on offense. Because it's pretty clear that SGA and Haliburton were the key offensive players on their respective teams; I'd argue that it's much less clear for Fox and his team. The results are even better at the team level, so even in that case that doesn't necessarily take away his value compared to the other two. But it's still something to consider.

[Doctor MJ]

Man, Defensive Player of the Year is one of these times where I'm so glad I take the RS & PS into consideration when making my call on the awards I really care about. Forced to pick guys right now, it's frustrating.

The big thing here is Jaren Jackson Jr.'s limited playing time. To me he feels like the guy who should be winning this award...but I don't think I can justify picking him at this point.

The #1 RS defense by DRtg is led by the sophomore Evan Mobley. It really feels like it's too early to give him this award - not because he's too young, but because he's clearly still figuring things out and saying he's perhaps "a few seasons behind" JJJ in this comparison feels pretty satisfying. But he played a lot more than JJJ, and that had everything to do with why the Cavs ended up with the best DRtg. I'm super excited and cheering for Mobley, but I'm reluctant to say he's been THE DPOY this year.

The other main guy on my mind is Brook Lopez, but that also means I have to talk about Jrue & Giannis. It's pretty clear cut to me that Brook should be the top DPOY candidate for the Bucks this year based on the data and him missing much less time...but it's not easy to convince me that you're the DPOY of the entire league when you have such amazing teammates and you still don't end up with the top defense in the league...

but Brook does have the best On-Court DRtg of anyone playing 2000+ minutes, and the Bucks have taken a big step back up to elite defense this year after falling to mediocrity last year. I think the man deserves a ton of credit.

This to say then, that after the RS I'm at:

1. Brook Lopez
2. Evan Mobley
3. Jaren Jackson Jr.

Everyone of course can have their ranking fluctuate dramatically in the playoffs, but the playoff performances of Mobley & JJJ are going to be really, really informative for me. What's truly bulletproof, and what isn't?

Brook though is also quite fragile because of the threat of his teammates. Even if the Bucks win it all with a dominant defense, I may well end up giving the top spot to Giannis.

2 other looming specters to mention:

The Celtics - probably not one guy I'll single out for the top spot, but quite plausible for the Celtics to win a title with dominant D if they can get into that zone again.

Draymond - a worthy candidate for one of the slots already, and now it's the 16-game season. Can certainly see a path for him all the way to the top.

And then finally, shout out to Caruso!

[The-Power]

The #1 RS defense by DRtg is led by the sophomore Evan Mobley. It really feels like it's too early to give him this award - not because he's too young, but because he's clearly still figuring things out and saying he's perhaps "a few seasons behind" JJJ in this comparison feels pretty satisfying. But he played a lot more than JJJ, and that had everything to do with why the Cavs ended up with the best DRtg. I'm super excited and cheering for Mobley, but I'm reluctant to say he's been THE DPOY this year.

Are we sure the defense is led by Mobley to a degree that we can ascribe their #1 defense primarily to him? After all, the defense is even better with him on the bench and the on-off numbers for the entire Cavs roster are pretty steady. To me, it seems like it's been a team-wide effort. Of course Mobley is a key factor here, but so is Allen and possibly some under-appreciated role players in addition to just a great defensive culture. If we want to honor one Cavs player in particular: what makes Mobley so much more important than Allen? And that's a genuine question, not me implying that Mobley doesn't have a strong case.

This to say then, that after the RS I'm at:

1. Brook Lopez
2. Evan Mobley
3. Jaren Jackson Jr.

[...]

2 other looming specters to mention:

The Celtics - probably not one guy I'll single out for the top spot, but quite plausible for the Celtics to win a title with dominant D if they can get into that zone again.

Draymond - a worthy candidate for one of the slots already, and now it's the 16-game season. Can certainly see a path for him all the way to the top.

The list makes sense although the order is debatable. I'll throw out two more names that I would like to hear your thoughts on, though: Nic Claxton and Anthony Davis. You seem to not consider them as possible candidates. What are these guys missing, in your opinion?

And, of course, there's the elephant in the room: what about Rudy Gobert?

[ardee]

I think Embiid is going to win the MVP and I certainly don't have an issue with it because he was nothing short of spectacular, especially for the last 2 months, but I do feel bad for Jokic.

He basically had his third straight sewn up by early March. The Nuggets were 46-19, keeping pace with the Bucks for the rest record in the league, and Jokic was averaging 24/12/10 on 60/40/80 and 70% TS. Then out of nowhere they lose 5 of the next 6 and never really recover, finish the season 7-10, while Embiid went supernova at the same time. Jokic kept playing to his standards of course but his teammates let him down.

I don't think I've ever seen an MVP race like this where someone had defeat snatched from the jaws of victory from them.

[Doctor MJ]

For Offensive Player of the Year, I think it's wise to start with a reminder that basically every year now we're seeing offenses learn to get more effective at scoring the ball, and so in any given season, we're probably looking at the most effective (regular season) offense we've ever seen.

The Sacramento Kings this year have the best ORtg in history, and have a near 3 point edge over the best rating last year.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider relative dominance within era when looking to do cross-era comparisons, but I think it's important to understand that being #1 in offense at this time, and doing so "with a bullet", should be seen as a really big deal (with the one caveat being "let's see how it looks in the playoffs".

As such, I think it makes sense to mention a King for this award. Honestly, I think Fox is worthy of being put forth, but I'm going to give the nod to Domantas Sabonis who has the better box score all-in-ones, played considerably more, and whose arrival was the key on-court catalyst to the team emerging as it has.

This to say that I'd be fine with having Sabonis in the top spot in theory...but of course anything we look at ends up favoring Jokic over Sabonis, including on-court ORtg as well as all the other more sophisticated stuff.

There's an obvious guy to take the 3rd spot in the ballot in Joel Embiid. I think it's pretty doable to make the case for Embiid over Sabonis even without his major advantage on defense, but Sabonis also played more which had everything to do with Sacramento achieving their record breaking offense.

Now, it's also true that Sabonis also played considerably more than Jokic, and that could be used to argue for Sabonis over Jokic. To me this is where it matters that Denver was a #1 seed that seemed to take their foot off the gas at the end. I can respect a perspective that that time period should give Sabonis the nod over Jokic, but I just can't swing my vote based on stuff that doesn't seem like it really mattered.

So for now:
1. Nikola Jokic
2. Domantas Sabonis
3. Joel Embiid

Of course there's all sorts of stars with their knives out ready to make a run up this list. I can't imagine anyone will be surprised if Curry or Butler ends up crashing the party.

One thing I will say for both this and OPOY is that I'm really not sure how I'll see the members of the Phoenix Suns when considering their candidacies.

If I believe KD is the best player and/or offensive player in the playoffs as he leads the team to a title? Normally my answer would be yes, but the pre-Phoenix year of his also matters to me, and he did massive damage to that franchise with his action during this season.

Then there's Devin Booker to consider. He may well have an argument of having the best overall year of anyone on the NBA champs if the Suns win the title. How will his standing be affected by Durant?

[ardee]

So for now:
1. Nikola Jokic
2. Domantas Sabonis
3. Joel Embiid

Imagine telling someone from '14-'18 when this award was all guards + LeBron that we'd have 3 centers headlining it in '23. The game has really flipped things around in the last few years.

[rk2023]

Surprised at the lack of Tatum discussion in here. Don't think I'll vote because I haven't watched enough this year but seems to me he's a pretty obvious top 5 candidate.

It's hard for me to see him over Embiid, Jokic, Giannis, Curry, Durant

[MyUniBroDavis]

Surprised at the lack of Tatum discussion in here. Don't think I'll vote because I haven't watched enough this year but seems to me he's a pretty obvious top 5 candidate.

It's hard for me to see him over Embiid, Jokic, Giannis, Curry, Durant

Curry and Durant have had injury issues though

[The-Power]

So for now:
1. Nikola Jokic
2. Domantas Sabonis
3. Joel Embiid

Imagine telling someone from '14-'18 when this award was all guards + LeBron that we'd have 3 centers headlining it in '23. The game has really flipped things around in the last few years.

It has but I'm a bit concerned that the pendulum has swung a bit too far into the opposite direction.

Jokic is an obvious choice for OPOY but I will have to be convinced that Sabonis has a serious claim to the podium. Color me skeptical for now. And while I definitely do see the argument for Embiid, I want to raise a – likely controversial – question: how much better is he offensively than his own teammate, James Harden? I think he has a good argument over Harden this year but wouldn't consider it a slam dunk either. Where would people rank Harden on their OPOY ballots? Is he in the top 3 conversation? Top 5? Top 10? Lower than that?

[Dutchball97]

Damian Lillard leads in O-EPM and O-LEBRON, while being a close 2nd behind Jokic in O-RAPTOR and OBPM. He's also 5th in O-RAPM, while having next to no help offensively on his team. I find it very hard (pretty much impossible) to have players who miss the play-offs anywhere close to these awards and since Lillard has also only played 58 games it's not impossible for a couple part-time players like KD and Curry to pass him by with a good post-season showing either.

Still it feels weird that someone can be the best offensive player in a given season and not be top 3 in the offensive player of the year award. Especially since I have Luka 3rd and he's not going to be able to defend that spot either so I guess my ballot will be Jokic and whoever else has good play-offs on the offensive end out of the star players. Embiid and Tatum probably have the best chance to make it as of now.

[CKRT]

For Offensive Player of the Year, I think it's wise to start with a reminder that basically every year now we're seeing offenses learn to get more effective at scoring the ball, and so in any given season, we're probably looking at the most effective (regular season) offense we've ever seen.

The Sacramento Kings this year have the best ORtg in history, and have a near 3 point edge over the best rating last year.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider relative dominance within era when looking to do cross-era comparisons, but I think it's important to understand that being #1 in offense at this time, and doing so "with a bullet", should be seen as a really big deal (with the one caveat being "let's see how it looks in the playoffs".

The ever shifting 'best ORTG in history' has honestly been really difficult for me to really gauge historically. I really noticed this trend beginning with the discussion around Harden being a superstar WAY back in 2011 (hat tip bastillon for being overwhelmingly correct well before damn near everyone) when people would talk about the Thunder's ORTG with Harden on the court and how it was the best ORTG of all time, though Nash led lineups are probably the origin of this kind of talk being more 'mainstream' on the board. Obviously since then we have seen teams continue to post absurd ORTGs year in and year out and I'm at the point where I don't know what to think about it.

[MyUniBroDavis]

So for now:
1. Nikola Jokic
2. Domantas Sabonis
3. Joel Embiid

Imagine telling someone from '14-'18 when this award was all guards + LeBron that we'd have 3 centers headlining it in '23. The game has really flipped things around in the last few years.

It has but I'm a bit concerned that the pendulum has swung a bit too far into the opposite direction.

Jokic is an obvious choice for OPOY but I will have to be convinced that Sabonis has a serious claim to the podium. Color me skeptical for now. And while I definitely do see the argument for Embiid, I want to raise a – likely controversial – question: how much better is he offensively than his own teammate, James Harden? I think he has a good argument over Harden this year but wouldn't consider it a slam dunk either. Where would people rank Harden on their OPOY ballots? Is he in the top 3 conversation? Top 5? Top 10? Lower than that?

When it comes to Sabonis, I understand why it’s generally believed that hes >> fox on offense but I don’t actually think there’s really any empirical evidence to support that.

Fox has a slight advantage in:

O-EPM
O-LEBRON
O-RAPM
O-LARAPM
O-NetRTG

The gap is so small it’s essentially nothing for a lot of these

Another thing, the kings are by far the best clutch team in the league this year, with an offensive rtg of 128.6 in the clutch (second are the Celtics at 118.4), the fact that fox is the main driver of their offense during this time and I think is the league leader is clutch points per game is probably something to take note of when comparing them too


I wouldn’t say he’s better overall but offensicely soeaking it’s not really clear cut that sabonis is over fox

[rk2023]

Surprised at the lack of Tatum discussion in here. Don't think I'll vote because I haven't watched enough this year but seems to me he's a pretty obvious top 5 candidate.

It's hard for me to see him over Embiid, Jokic, Giannis, Curry, Durant

Curry and Durant have had injury issues though

That’s true. I think you *may* be able to argue that the aggregate lift (better on a / poss. basis at the very least) those two provides despite playing much less than Tatum. Am also much confident with what either of them can do in a PS setting, which is going to have more of an influence on how my voting may be.

[MyUniBroDavis]

It's hard for me to see him over Embiid, Jokic, Giannis, Curry, Durant

Curry and Durant have had injury issues though

That’s true. I think you *may* be able to argue that the aggregate lift (better on a / poss. basis at the very least) those two provides despite playing much less than Tatum. Am also much confident with what either of them can do in a PS setting, which is going to have more of an influence on how my voting may be.

I thought you just meant for now lol

[Doctor MJ]

The #1 RS defense by DRtg is led by the sophomore Evan Mobley. It really feels like it's too early to give him this award - not because he's too young, but because he's clearly still figuring things out and saying he's perhaps "a few seasons behind" JJJ in this comparison feels pretty satisfying. But he played a lot more than JJJ, and that had everything to do with why the Cavs ended up with the best DRtg. I'm super excited and cheering for Mobley, but I'm reluctant to say he's been THE DPOY this year.

Are we sure the defense is led by Mobley to a degree that we can ascribe their #1 defense primarily to him? After all, the defense is even better with him on the bench and the on-off numbers for the entire Cavs roster are pretty steady. To me, it seems like it's been a team-wide effort. Of course Mobley is a key factor here, but so is Allen and possibly some under-appreciated role players in addition to just a great defensive culture. If we want to honor one Cavs player in particular: what makes Mobley so much more important than Allen? And that's a genuine question, not me implying that Mobley doesn't have a strong case.

Good questions and I think we share a certain skepticism. Certainly it's not all Mobley. But I'll point out some things:

1. Note that Mobley played 79 games and that none of the other in the Cavs Big 4 played 70. On that alone, it seems unlikely to me that Jarrett Allen should be seen as comparable to Mobley for DPOY consideration unless the defense fell off a cliff without Allen, which it didn't.

2. As folks here know, I like using raw +/- as an entry point for conversations like this, but I wouldn't stop there. So if we go to nbashotcharts, I'll point both to their DRAPM and luck-adjusted DRAPM.

The DRAPM, to be clear, doesn't tell an extremely positive Mobley story. The Cavs leaderboard there is:

1. Dean Wade 1.26
2. Jarrett Allen 1.07
3. Evan Mobley 0.99

While I'd note that if you used this data along with minutes to create a VORP like stat, Mobley would come out as the defensive MVP of the Cavs, the LA-RAPM makes the separation considerably more bold:

1. Evan Mobley 1.71
2. Donovan Mitchell 1.20
3. Jarrett Allen 0.92

And honestly, that's enough for me to have no problem seeing Mobley as the clear defensive #1 of the team. If there were other factors that were glaringly in the other direction it might not be, but really what I'm seeing is consilient between box score metrics, +/- metrics, minutes, and team success along with "eye testy" stuff.

Sidenote: I have concerns when it comes to "luck-adjusted". In the end such adjustments are done based on the assumption that certain things are beyond a player's influence and this is not a trivial assumption. But of course that doesn't mean I can't make use of the data. Dismissing the luck-adjustment in this situation is the equivalent of making the statement that all the other Cavs collectively are just bizarrely good at influencing stuff that many think is governed by luck, and it's just Mobley who doesn't have those Jedi powers. Yeah, no, that does not seem likely to me.

This to say then, that after the RS I'm at:

1. Brook Lopez
2. Evan Mobley
3. Jaren Jackson Jr.

[...]

2 other looming specters to mention:

The Celtics - probably not one guy I'll single out for the top spot, but quite plausible for the Celtics to win a title with dominant D if they can get into that zone again.

Draymond - a worthy candidate for one of the slots already, and now it's the 16-game season. Can certainly see a path for him all the way to the top.

The list makes sense although the order is debatable. I'll throw out two more names that I would like to hear your thoughts on, though: Nic Claxton and Anthony Davis. You seem to not consider them as possible candidates. What are these guys missing, in your opinion?

And, of course, there's the elephant in the room: what about Rudy Gobert?

I'm glad you're throwing out other names, and honestly Gobert is probably particularly important to discuss (though we'll have to tread carefully).

Nic Claxton is someone it makes sense to bring up both for DPOY and for MIP. I didn't mean to slight him, but I guess I just saw enough other guys for the 3 slots who had more of a lightning bolt of a year that I didn't keep going in my post until I got to him.

Certainly part of that has to do with the Brooklyn Nets leaving the foreground of my mind after the divas jumped ship. In the end, we're talking about a team that had a middling season with a middling defense. That doesn't mean that they can't have the best defender in the league, but for me to see such a player as having the season with the most defensive achievement, I probably have to see some stats that are really extreme, and I just don't. He's 2nd in blocks which is something that certainly does make him someone we should consider, but more holistic metrics tend to show him as a little less of an outlier and I can't really say I'm left thinking he pops like the 3 guys I balloted.

Anthony Davis is certainly a DPOY level guy when he's on (and he's been on recently), but even just with the games missed it's hard for me to seriously consider him for the RS award. Now, if he goes Bubble on everybody in the playoffs again and leads the Lakers to (or possibly even near) the chip, that will change things.

On to Gobert:

First let me acknowledge that the Timberwolves are better defensively with him on the court. The narrative of disappointment that follows Gobert like a dark cloud right now shouldn't make people come to the conclusion that Gobert is playing bad at the thing he's supposed to be good at. I would vote Gobert is the DPOY of the Timberwolves, and it is entirely possible that he could still be the best defender on the best defense in the league.

However, the narrative is based of real phenomena that should be analyzed. In this case, the fact that the Timberwolf defense was roughly as effective this year as it was last year, and it really, really wasn't supposed to be. So what happened?

Here's an article from the beginning of the season talking about the challenges ahead as they abandoned their "scramble defense" from last year in favor of something to work with Gobert.

In a nutshell, thinking of a defender like Gobert as someone who has guaranteed additive impact just isn't accurate.

The Timberwolves playing '21-22 style sans Rudy achieved a certain level of effectiveness as a defense.
The Timberwolves playing '22-23 style with Rudy achieved a certain level of effectiveness as a defense.

And the reality is that it was about the same...which is a tremendous disappointment that the players absolutely FEEL, and I think you saw some of that effect in the utterly bizarre 2-punch finale to the Minny regular season.

So yeah, I don't look at such a season and think it merits accolades. I'm not saying with a certainty that things can't get better next year, but it's awful hard to look at anything with the Timberwolves this season as if having a completed arc of achievement.

[Doctor MJ]

I think Embiid is going to win the MVP and I certainly don't have an issue with it because he was nothing short of spectacular, especially for the last 2 months, but I do feel bad for Jokic.

He basically had his third straight sewn up by early March. The Nuggets were 46-19, keeping pace with the Bucks for the rest record in the league, and Jokic was averaging 24/12/10 on 60/40/80 and 70% TS. Then out of nowhere they lose 5 of the next 6 and never really recover, finish the season 7-10, while Embiid went supernova at the same time. Jokic kept playing to his standards of course but his teammates let him down.

I don't think I've ever seen an MVP race like this where someone had defeat snatched from the jaws of victory from them.

Ah, well it wasn't really "out of nowhere" was it though? It happened after this talking point went nuclear in basketball culture:

When it comes down to guys being MVP since 1990, there’s only three guys that won the MVP that wasn’t in the top 10 in scoring. Do you know who those three guys were? Steve Nash, Jokic and Dirk Nowitzki. Now, what do those guys have in common? I’ll let it sit there and marinate so you can think about it.

I'm not saying that this necessarily had any effect on the Nuggets, but if you're looking for a cause to explain the event, it's actually quite salient imho.

I also want to make clear that I'm not really sure if Jokic really feels at all bad about not getting the MVP. That 3rd MVP was going to lead to an escalation of grumblings against him and his team. It may well be for the best for Jokic and the Nuggets for him not to get this MVP, and so while I don't know Jokic's mind - he honestly may not even think about this - I think there's a good chance that missing out on this award isn't bothering him.

ftr, I think Jokic was still the clear cut MVP of the league despite coming down to Earth at the end. No shade meant on Embiid who is certainly an MVP-level player. I just think Jokic was still more valuable.

[Doctor MJ]

So for now:
1. Nikola Jokic
2. Domantas Sabonis
3. Joel Embiid

Imagine telling someone from '14-'18 when this award was all guards + LeBron that we'd have 3 centers headlining it in '23. The game has really flipped things around in the last few years.

Isn't it amazing! I love it getting to witness this rapid evolution.

A couple thoughts:

1. I think what we're seeing is a return to certain physical norms in the wake of a propagation of new essential skills in a paradigm shift. Sometimes referred to as "not small-ball, skill-ball". Those who succeed with less traditional talent tend to be the sources of innovation. Once the innovation is in the wild though, if players with more traditional talent can master the innovation, they may well regain the edge.

2. I think there's something really interesting going with the guards. There were two guards this year who win they played were absolutely worthy of being in strong consideration for the 2nd slot: Dame & Steph. What do these guys have in common? 1) amazing 3-point shooters, and 2) they are OLD!

There's a question that will need to be addressed at some point if this trend continues:

What happened to the next generation of these guys who were expect to show up by now?

Now, maybe we'll end up figuring out that players like this will tend to age like fine wine to the point that we can no longer expect still-young guys to be as good at shooting as the very best...but even if that's the case, that's really a new phenomenon (Curry raised the bar when he was only 24 after all).