NBA MVP Discussion Thread 2023-24 (Part 4: MVP Thread's Revenge)

[Doctor MJ]

Race is looking done. With just 17 games left Jokic just keeps stretching his lead by the day.

Jokic deserves the MVP but if he wins another he would be the first one to win 3 MVPs without being 1st or 2nd seed in RS. I think the media gave him a pass when his team ranked 11th in the league and that‘s breaking the normal best player on best team narrative.

I'm definitely not set that Jokic has clinched the MVP, but I'll say I don't think there's any reluctance to give him the MVP this year, whereas there was much trepidation about it last year, and I think the difference has everything to do with last year's playoffs.

Had Denver got upset in the first round with Jokic looking like a problem for his team, I think SGA would be running away with the race right now. Instead, Jokic looked like the best player in the world en route to a chip, and some votes came out an said they felt they'd been silly to not vote for him. I think this gives Jokic now a tailwind which will give him the edge over SGA if it remains close.

Edit: Let's also be clear that while voters like voting for guys on teams with elite records, the often mentioned idea that there was ever a traditional "best player on the best team" norm is wrong. There were always some who liked to think this simplistically, but there were always more sophisticated viewpoints as well, and if we're looking at the most extreme cases of winning MVP with a mediocre teams, they occurred decades ago, thus implying that this pull toward over-simplicity might actually be increasing in modern vote pools. This is ironic in some ways because the state-of-the-art understanding of the game is drastically more sophisticated than in earlier eras, but it also makes sense given that guys like SAS & Perk are such loud voices in the media and such guys make a point to talk with more childlike simplicity than voters who communicated primarily through writing tended toward.

To put it another way: It's the best of times and the worst of times right now as we get increasing divergence between the thinkers and the feelers.

[Bob8]

I think you're partially right but also think you're a little overly pessimistic on Luka. This seems like something someone would say about Jordan before he started winning consistently, and while playstyle was certainly part of that, it was moreso coaching and surrounding talent. Luka is posting the best +/- #'s of his career, ones that aren't that different from prime Harden, and Luka is 25 and a better postseason player than Harden ever was. Now, this is in no way saying Luka should be the MVP, he should not, and he's still plenty flawed, but I do think you narrow in on +/- a bit much at times.

Problem is elsewhere, you can somewhat penalise Luka for not having good enough record for MVP. But you can't blame him for not having good enough record and not having good enough +/-. It's basically the same thing.

There's of course a question, who could have much better record with roster Mavs actually played with, because of immense problems with injuries?

I hope that every +/- apologists understand that Wemby can't be rookie MVP.

+/- accounts for the quality of teammates. If Luka’s teammates were as terrible as you claim they are, his +/- would be much better than it is.

I still think Luka can become an impact giant, but he needs to start playing defense and trusting his teammates more on offense.

No, +/- measures how good lineups are. On/off is heavily influenced by your replacement. Luka's replacement is mostly Kyrie.

Tell me 1 Nba player, not playing in good team, with +/- comparable to those players in top teams. And then you can see how full starting lineups of the best teams are having fantastic +/-.

[iggymcfrack]

So, let's really be clear: In MVP conversations we're not talking about any star player being "the problem" on his team relative to his teammates. It's a question of whether the guy in question is the best of the best. The competition is brutal by definition, and it's why we see folks (such as myself in this case) make anti- arguments for guys. Not because we think any of the players here literally make their teams worse, but because we're implicitly comparing the players to other elite players.

Now, related to the specific usage question:

The point is not that ultra-high star usage is an inherently bad thing - it might actually be the right thing for the set of players in question - but that it runs the risk of making people overate the star and underate his teammates.

Luka doesn't have these huge numbers like no other star because his teammates are uniquely incapable of gaining more production themselves, and Luka doesn't have these huge numbers like no other stars because they are trying and failing to do what he's doing. He has these numbers because he's choosing to play in an ultra-extreme primacy way, and while it's fine for him to do this if it's the best move for his team, it doesn't mean his value increases in linear proportion to his volume.

This relates to why I brought Wilt earlier because these conversations with Wilt have been happening for forever.

Even after people acknowledge that Wilt's teams were better with him scoring less than he did at his peak, they still tend to see those peak numbers as a baseline for how good he was. And while it's certainly impressive that he could score so much, you really can't extrapolate from that scoring volume to figure out how valuable he was at his true value peak (which came later).

Luka is a very different player from Wilt in many ways, but in terms of extreme individual primacy in a team sport setting, they are very much cut from the same cloth, and so anyone looking to use the box score as their ground truth to assess their value will tend to overrate value.

I think you're partially right but also think you're a little overly pessimistic on Luka. This seems like something someone would say about Jordan before he started winning consistently, and while playstyle was certainly part of that, it was moreso coaching and surrounding talent. Luka is posting the best +/- #'s of his career, ones that aren't that different from prime Harden, and Luka is 25 and a better postseason player than Harden ever was. Now, this is in no way saying Luka should be the MVP, he should not, and he's still plenty flawed, but I do think you narrow in on +/- a bit much at times.

Problem is elsewhere, you can somewhat penalise Luka for not having good enough record for MVP. But you can't blame him for not having good enough record and not having good enough +/-. It's basically the same thing.

There's of course a question, who could have much better record with roster Mavs actually played with, because of immense problems with injuries?

I hope that every +/- apologists understand that Wemby can't be rookie MVP.

They’re not remotely the same thing. They’re not even correlated. Every team’s on/off adds up to 0 no matter what their record is. If anything, there’s a slight inverse correlation in that it’s easier to show impact with weaker teammates.

Tatum’s team has the best record, but his on/off is only +2.5. Some people would say this is because his team being so good makes it hard for him to differentiate himself. Meanwhile, Markkanen plays with much worse starters than Luka and still has a plus/minus of +9.1.

[iggymcfrack]

Edit: Double post

[Bob8]

I think you're partially right but also think you're a little overly pessimistic on Luka. This seems like something someone would say about Jordan before he started winning consistently, and while playstyle was certainly part of that, it was moreso coaching and surrounding talent. Luka is posting the best +/- #'s of his career, ones that aren't that different from prime Harden, and Luka is 25 and a better postseason player than Harden ever was. Now, this is in no way saying Luka should be the MVP, he should not, and he's still plenty flawed, but I do think you narrow in on +/- a bit much at times.

Problem is elsewhere, you can somewhat penalise Luka for not having good enough record for MVP. But you can't blame him for not having good enough record and not having good enough +/-. It's basically the same thing.

There's of course a question, who could have much better record with roster Mavs actually played with, because of immense problems with injuries?

I hope that every +/- apologists understand that Wemby can't be rookie MVP.

They’re not remotely the same thing. They’re not even correlated. Every team’s on/off adds up to 0 no matter what their record is. If anything, there’s a slight inverse correlation in that it’s easier to show impact with weaker teammates.

Tatum’s team has the best record, but his on/off is only +2.5. Some people would say this is because his team being so good makes it hard for him to differentiate himself. Meanwhile, Markkanen plays with much worse starters than Luka and still has a plus/minus of +9.1.

I'm talking about on court +/-. Strongly correlated with team success. On/off is heavily influenced by your replacement. Luka's is Kyrie. Who's Jokic's?

About Markkanen, worse replacement you have, better is your on/off. I have a feeling that you don't understand how on/off works. On the other hand for good on court +/- you need as good teammates as possible. Markkanen having worse on court +/- than Luka.

[iggymcfrack]

Problem is elsewhere, you can somewhat penalise Luka for not having good enough record for MVP. But you can't blame him for not having good enough record and not having good enough +/-. It's basically the same thing.

There's of course a question, who could have much better record with roster Mavs actually played with, because of immense problems with injuries?

I hope that every +/- apologists understand that Wemby can't be rookie MVP.

They’re not remotely the same thing. They’re not even correlated. Every team’s on/off adds up to 0 no matter what their record is. If anything, there’s a slight inverse correlation in that it’s easier to show impact with weaker teammates.

Tatum’s team has the best record, but his on/off is only +2.5. Some people would say this is because his team being so good makes it hard for him to differentiate himself. Meanwhile, Markkanen plays with much worse starters than Luka and still has a plus/minus of +9.1.

I'm talking about on court +/-. Strongly correlated with team success. On/off is heavily influenced by your replacement. Luka's is Kyrie. Who's Jokic's?

About Markkanen, worse replacement you have, better is your on/off. I have a feeling that you don't understand how on/off works.

Kyrie is not Luka’s “replacement”. They’re both starters. He’s played 62.4% of his possessions with Luka on the floor. For comparison’s sake, Murray has played 76.2% of his possessions with Jokic. However, this even exaggerates the difference as Luka tends to miss games more than Jokic. When you account for Luka missing 4 of Kyrie’s 43 games and Joker only missing 1 of Murray’s 49 games, it’s actually more like 68.8% and 77.8% in games they share the floor together.

[Bob8]

They’re not remotely the same thing. They’re not even correlated. Every team’s on/off adds up to 0 no matter what their record is. If anything, there’s a slight inverse correlation in that it’s easier to show impact with weaker teammates.

Tatum’s team has the best record, but his on/off is only +2.5. Some people would say this is because his team being so good makes it hard for him to differentiate himself. Meanwhile, Markkanen plays with much worse starters than Luka and still has a plus/minus of +9.1.

I'm talking about on court +/-. Strongly correlated with team success. On/off is heavily influenced by your replacement. Luka's is Kyrie. Who's Jokic's?

About Markkanen, worse replacement you have, better is your on/off. I have a feeling that you don't understand how on/off works.

Kyrie is not Luka’s “replacement”. They’re both starters. He’s played 62.4% of his possessions with Luka on the floor. For comparison’s sake, Murray has played 76.2% of his possessions with Jokic. However, this even exaggerates the difference as Luka tends to miss games more than Jokic. When you account for Luka missing 4 of Kyrie’s 43 games and Joker only missing 1 of Murray’s 49 games, it’s actually more like 68.8% and 77.8% in games they share the floor together.

Kidd has at least one of them always on the court. Kyrie goes out first and returns when Luka goes out. Luka is playing 37.5 minutes, so there really isn't much time for Kyrie playing without him.

I find somewhat funny, how people who don't watch other teams much, have furious discussions with fans of teams that watch every game of their team. Some things can be seen in stats and some can't.

[Woodsanity]

Race is looking done. With just 17 games left Jokic just keeps stretching his lead by the day.

Jokic deserves the MVP but if he wins another he would be the first one to win 3 MVPs without being 1st or 2nd seed in RS. I think the media gave him a pass when his team ranked 11th in the league and that‘s breaking the normal best player on best team narrative.

Well he is 2nd seed in West now and its still possible to get 1st.

Last season he was 1st in the West and didnt win it.

[zero rings]

I'm talking about on court +/-. Strongly correlated with team success. On/off is heavily influenced by your replacement. Luka's is Kyrie. Who's Jokic's?

About Markkanen, worse replacement you have, better is your on/off. I have a feeling that you don't understand how on/off works.

Kyrie is not Luka’s “replacement”. They’re both starters. He’s played 62.4% of his possessions with Luka on the floor. For comparison’s sake, Murray has played 76.2% of his possessions with Jokic. However, this even exaggerates the difference as Luka tends to miss games more than Jokic. When you account for Luka missing 4 of Kyrie’s 43 games and Joker only missing 1 of Murray’s 49 games, it’s actually more like 68.8% and 77.8% in games they share the floor together.

Kidd has at least one of them always on the court. Kyrie goes out first and returns when Luka goes out. Luka is playing 37.5 minutes, so there really isn't much time for Kyrie playing without him.

I find somewhat funny, how people who don't watch other teams much, have furious discussions with fans of teams that watch every game of their team. Some things can be seen in stats and some can't.

This trend of Luka having ho-hum impact stats for an MVP candidate is consistent throughout his career. It can’t be explained away by his minutes being staggered with Kyrie this season.

And if you watch the games without an agenda, and really pay attention to what’s going on, it’s not hard to see why. He’s a lazy defender who spends too much time arguing with officials. And because he has the ball so much, his off nights are more damaging to his team than they are for most star players. It’s not that uncommon to see Luka with a -20 in a loss. You will almost never see this from someone like Jokic.

[Bob8]

Kyrie is not Luka’s “replacement”. They’re both starters. He’s played 62.4% of his possessions with Luka on the floor. For comparison’s sake, Murray has played 76.2% of his possessions with Jokic. However, this even exaggerates the difference as Luka tends to miss games more than Jokic. When you account for Luka missing 4 of Kyrie’s 43 games and Joker only missing 1 of Murray’s 49 games, it’s actually more like 68.8% and 77.8% in games they share the floor together.

Kidd has at least one of them always on the court. Kyrie goes out first and returns when Luka goes out. Luka is playing 37.5 minutes, so there really isn't much time for Kyrie playing without him.

I find somewhat funny, how people who don't watch other teams much, have furious discussions with fans of teams that watch every game of their team. Some things can be seen in stats and some can't.

This trend of Luka having ho-hum impact stats for an MVP candidate is consistent throughout his career. It can’t be explained away by his minutes being staggered with Kyrie this season.

And if you watch the games without an agenda, and really pay attention to what’s going on, it’s not hard to see why. He’s a lazy defender who spends too much time arguing with officials. And because he has the ball so much, his off nights are more damaging to his team than they are for most star players. It’s not that uncommon to see Luka with a -20 in a loss. You will almost never see this from someone like Jokic.

Before was Brunson.

What's going on with on/off is really not that difficulty to understand. If your second best player plays on your position, your on/off will be never spectacular. But teams are mostly built differently, superstars are supported by good players in different positions. Just look at Denver or OKC.

Don't you think that's kinda difficult to carry every game average team? And yes, players in great teams have very rarely bad on court +/-, because their teams are rarely blown out.

[Exp0sed]

This trend of Luka having ho-hum impact stats for an MVP candidate is consistent throughout his career. It can’t be explained away by his minutes being staggered with Kyrie this season.

And if you watch the games without an agenda, and really pay attention to what’s going on, it’s not hard to see why. He’s a lazy defender who spends too much time arguing with officials. And because he has the ball so much, his off nights are more damaging to his team than they are for most star players. It’s not that uncommon to see Luka with a -20 in a loss. You will almost never see this from someone like Jokic.

it was consistent, it's been alot better than ho-hum since Kyrie came back (which coincided a few games later with their deadline move). how do u expect Jokic to post a -20 when Denver almost never loses by 20+?

naturally this could be circular, meaning - Jokic is the reason they don't often lose by 20+ and that's def playing a part but it's not everything. When's the last time Luka had an off night? sure he's not as consistent as Jokic or SGA but he's been pretty consitent himself.

[iggymcfrack]

Kidd has at least one of them always on the court. Kyrie goes out first and returns when Luka goes out. Luka is playing 37.5 minutes, so there really isn't much time for Kyrie playing without him.

I find somewhat funny, how people who don't watch other teams much, have furious discussions with fans of teams that watch every game of their team. Some things can be seen in stats and some can't.

This trend of Luka having ho-hum impact stats for an MVP candidate is consistent throughout his career. It can’t be explained away by his minutes being staggered with Kyrie this season.

And if you watch the games without an agenda, and really pay attention to what’s going on, it’s not hard to see why. He’s a lazy defender who spends too much time arguing with officials. And because he has the ball so much, his off nights are more damaging to his team than they are for most star players. It’s not that uncommon to see Luka with a -20 in a loss. You will almost never see this from someone like Jokic.

Before was Brunson.

What's going on with on/off is really not that difficulty to understand. If your second best player plays on your position, your on/off will be never spectacular. But teams are mostly built differently, superstars are supported by good players in different positions. Just look at Denver or OKC.

What’s your excuse for last year? Kyrie and Luka only played 14 games together and Luka’s on/off was even more pedestrian than this year.

Don't you think that's kinda difficult to carry every game average team? And yes, players in great teams have very rarely bad on court +/-, because their teams are rarely blown out.

No. No, no, no. This is completely wrong. On/off is zero sum. Every team’s on/off, weighted by minutes will add up to zero. You’re only competing with your teammates. A team that goes 72-10 will have a similar distribution of good and bad on/off numbers to a 10-72 team. It’s just that it’s a lot harder to be one of the best players on a really good team than a really bad team since the players you're competing with are so much better. So someone who’s the 40th best player in the league might be below average on the Celtics and be expected to have a negative plus/minus while that same player might be the best player on the Pistons or Wizards and lead the team.

Now if you’re looking at on court NetRtg, sure it helps to be on a better team, but again every number that actually adjusts for teammates sees Luka come up short. He has absolutely zero case for MVP. Might he be the 4th or 5th best player in the league? Sure. But his case over Jokic is nonexistent. It’s like trying to say Trae Young is a better shooter than Steph Curry or something. Not a single piece of evidence supports your claim.

[zero rings]

Kidd has at least one of them always on the court. Kyrie goes out first and returns when Luka goes out. Luka is playing 37.5 minutes, so there really isn't much time for Kyrie playing without him.

I find somewhat funny, how people who don't watch other teams much, have furious discussions with fans of teams that watch every game of their team. Some things can be seen in stats and some can't.

This trend of Luka having ho-hum impact stats for an MVP candidate is consistent throughout his career. It can’t be explained away by his minutes being staggered with Kyrie this season.

And if you watch the games without an agenda, and really pay attention to what’s going on, it’s not hard to see why. He’s a lazy defender who spends too much time arguing with officials. And because he has the ball so much, his off nights are more damaging to his team than they are for most star players. It’s not that uncommon to see Luka with a -20 in a loss. You will almost never see this from someone like Jokic.

Before was Brunson.

What's going on with on/off is really not that difficulty to understand. If your second best player plays on your position, your on/off will be never spectacular. But teams are mostly built differently, superstars are supported by good players in different positions. Just look at Denver or OKC.

Don't you think that's kinda difficult to carry every game average team? And yes, players in great teams have very rarely bad on court +/-, because their teams are rarely blown out.

In 2022 Jokic had a team full of guys who are now out of the league, and posted better on-court and on/off numbers than Luka ever has. By a lot.

If your argument is the Mavs’ backups are uniquely good, then they should be much better than a play-in team.

[zero rings]

This trend of Luka having ho-hum impact stats for an MVP candidate is consistent throughout his career. It can’t be explained away by his minutes being staggered with Kyrie this season.

And if you watch the games without an agenda, and really pay attention to what’s going on, it’s not hard to see why. He’s a lazy defender who spends too much time arguing with officials. And because he has the ball so much, his off nights are more damaging to his team than they are for most star players. It’s not that uncommon to see Luka with a -20 in a loss. You will almost never see this from someone like Jokic.

it was consistent, it's been alot better than ho-hum since Kyrie came back (which coincided a few games later with their deadline move). how do u expect Jokic to post a -20 when Denver almost never loses by 20+?

naturally this could be circular, meaning - Jokic is the reason they don't often lose by 20+ and that's def playing a part but it's not everything. When's the last time Luka had an off night? sure he's not as consistent as Jokic or SGA but he's been pretty consitent himself.

Luka has been very impactful as of late, in large part because of career best 3 pt shooting.

He still lags behind Jokic, SGA, and others because of his poor defense and propensity to shoot his team out of games at times.

[Bob8]

This trend of Luka having ho-hum impact stats for an MVP candidate is consistent throughout his career. It can’t be explained away by his minutes being staggered with Kyrie this season.

And if you watch the games without an agenda, and really pay attention to what’s going on, it’s not hard to see why. He’s a lazy defender who spends too much time arguing with officials. And because he has the ball so much, his off nights are more damaging to his team than they are for most star players. It’s not that uncommon to see Luka with a -20 in a loss. You will almost never see this from someone like Jokic.

Before was Brunson.

What's going on with on/off is really not that difficulty to understand. If your second best player plays on your position, your on/off will be never spectacular. But teams are mostly built differently, superstars are supported by good players in different positions. Just look at Denver or OKC.

What’s your excuse for last year? Kyrie and Luka only played 14 games together and Luka’s on/off was even more pedestrian than this year.

Don't you think that's kinda difficult to carry every game average team? And yes, players in great teams have very rarely bad on court +/-, because their teams are rarely blown out.

No. No, no, no. This is completely wrong. On/off is zero sum. Every team’s on/off, weighted by minutes will add up to zero. You’re only competing with your teammates. A team that goes 72-10 will have a similar distribution of good and bad on/off numbers to a 10-72 team. It’s just that it’s a lot harder to be one of the best players on a really good team than a really bad team since the players you're competing with are so much better. So someone who’s the 40th best player in the league might be below average on the Celtics and be expected to have a negative plus/minus while that same player might be the best player on the Pistons or Wizards and lead the team.

Now if you’re looking at on court NetRtg, sure it helps to be on a better team, but again every number that actually adjusts for teammates sees Luka come up short. He has absolutely zero case for MVP. Might he be the 4th or 5th best player in the league? Sure. But his case over Jokic is nonexistent. It’s like trying to say Trae Young is a better shooter than Steph Curry or something. Not a single piece of evidence supports your claim.

Didn't we already go through this? I was talking about on/court +/- not on/off. I sincerely doubt that person I was replying to was talking about 1 game on/off.

Look, you have every right to say whatever you want about Luka. You don't believe he's good, don't like him...whatever.

Imho a player, who is averaging near 35 points triple double with 62 TS% should be considered as one of the top players in the league. And I said many times before, he won't get MVP because his team hasn't good enough results. I believe there're many circumstances that had big influence on Mavs winning, but that doesn't change anything in MVP race. I have never said he should get MVP over Jokic.

[iggymcfrack]

Before was Brunson.

What's going on with on/off is really not that difficulty to understand. If your second best player plays on your position, your on/off will be never spectacular. But teams are mostly built differently, superstars are supported by good players in different positions. Just look at Denver or OKC.

What’s your excuse for last year? Kyrie and Luka only played 14 games together and Luka’s on/off was even more pedestrian than this year.

Don't you think that's kinda difficult to carry every game average team? And yes, players in great teams have very rarely bad on court +/-, because their teams are rarely blown out.

No. No, no, no. This is completely wrong. On/off is zero sum. Every team’s on/off, weighted by minutes will add up to zero. You’re only competing with your teammates. A team that goes 72-10 will have a similar distribution of good and bad on/off numbers to a 10-72 team. It’s just that it’s a lot harder to be one of the best players on a really good team than a really bad team since the players you're competing with are so much better. So someone who’s the 40th best player in the league might be below average on the Celtics and be expected to have a negative plus/minus while that same player might be the best player on the Pistons or Wizards and lead the team.

Now if you’re looking at on court NetRtg, sure it helps to be on a better team, but again every number that actually adjusts for teammates sees Luka come up short. He has absolutely zero case for MVP. Might he be the 4th or 5th best player in the league? Sure. But his case over Jokic is nonexistent. It’s like trying to say Trae Young is a better shooter than Steph Curry or something. Not a single piece of evidence supports your claim.

Didn't we already go through this? I was talking about on/court +/- not on/off. I sincerely doubt that person I was replying to was talking about 1 game on/off.

Look, you have every right to say whatever you want about Luka. You don't believe he's good, don't like him...whatever.

Imho a player, who is averaging near 35 points triple double with 62 TS% should be considered as one of the top players in the league. And I said many times before, he won't get MVP because his team hasn't good enough results. I believe there're many circumstances that had big influence on Mavs winning, but that doesn't change anything in MVP race. I have never said he should get MVP over Jokic.

The reason he won’t get MVP is because Jokic and SGA are clearly better and Giannis likely is as well. If you don’t think he deserves it over Jokic, then what are you complaining about? He’s a pretty strong consensus at #4. People have mostly been ignoring his record when filling out their ballots.

[Bob8]

This trend of Luka having ho-hum impact stats for an MVP candidate is consistent throughout his career. It can’t be explained away by his minutes being staggered with Kyrie this season.

And if you watch the games without an agenda, and really pay attention to what’s going on, it’s not hard to see why. He’s a lazy defender who spends too much time arguing with officials. And because he has the ball so much, his off nights are more damaging to his team than they are for most star players. It’s not that uncommon to see Luka with a -20 in a loss. You will almost never see this from someone like Jokic.

Before was Brunson.

What's going on with on/off is really not that difficulty to understand. If your second best player plays on your position, your on/off will be never spectacular. But teams are mostly built differently, superstars are supported by good players in different positions. Just look at Denver or OKC.

Don't you think that's kinda difficult to carry every game average team? And yes, players in great teams have very rarely bad on court +/-, because their teams are rarely blown out.

In 2022 Jokic had a team full of guys who are now out of the league, and posted better on-court and on/off numbers than Luka ever has. By a lot.

If your argument is the Mavs’ backups are uniquely good, then they should be much better than a play-in team.

I'm claiming that not many players' backups are Brunson or Kyrie. What do you think would have happened with Luka's +/- on/of, if his backup was THJ and he was playing with Chet?

You can be pretty bad player and have fantastic on/off, if your replacement is even worse. And you can be very good player and your on/off will be average, if your replacement is good. Tell me is Tatum bad player, a lot worse than Luka this year?

[Bob8]

What’s your excuse for last year? Kyrie and Luka only played 14 games together and Luka’s on/off was even more pedestrian than this year.



No. No, no, no. This is completely wrong. On/off is zero sum. Every team’s on/off, weighted by minutes will add up to zero. You’re only competing with your teammates. A team that goes 72-10 will have a similar distribution of good and bad on/off numbers to a 10-72 team. It’s just that it’s a lot harder to be one of the best players on a really good team than a really bad team since the players you're competing with are so much better. So someone who’s the 40th best player in the league might be below average on the Celtics and be expected to have a negative plus/minus while that same player might be the best player on the Pistons or Wizards and lead the team.

Now if you’re looking at on court NetRtg, sure it helps to be on a better team, but again every number that actually adjusts for teammates sees Luka come up short. He has absolutely zero case for MVP. Might he be the 4th or 5th best player in the league? Sure. But his case over Jokic is nonexistent. It’s like trying to say Trae Young is a better shooter than Steph Curry or something. Not a single piece of evidence supports your claim.

Didn't we already go through this? I was talking about on/court +/- not on/off. I sincerely doubt that person I was replying to was talking about 1 game on/off.

Look, you have every right to say whatever you want about Luka. You don't believe he's good, don't like him...whatever.

Imho a player, who is averaging near 35 points triple double with 62 TS% should be considered as one of the top players in the league. And I said many times before, he won't get MVP because his team hasn't good enough results. I believe there're many circumstances that had big influence on Mavs winning, but that doesn't change anything in MVP race. I have never said he should get MVP over Jokic.

The reason he won’t get MVP is because Jokic and SGA are clearly better and Giannis likely is as well. If you don’t think he deserves it over Jokic, then what are you complaining about? He’s a pretty strong consensus at #4. People have mostly been ignoring his record when filling out their ballots.

I'm complaining about using +/- when measuring impact of the player.

If we're ignoring team success, Luka is clearly second best player after Jokic.

[Bob8]

This trend of Luka having ho-hum impact stats for an MVP candidate is consistent throughout his career. It can’t be explained away by his minutes being staggered with Kyrie this season.

And if you watch the games without an agenda, and really pay attention to what’s going on, it’s not hard to see why. He’s a lazy defender who spends too much time arguing with officials. And because he has the ball so much, his off nights are more damaging to his team than they are for most star players. It’s not that uncommon to see Luka with a -20 in a loss. You will almost never see this from someone like Jokic.

it was consistent, it's been alot better than ho-hum since Kyrie came back (which coincided a few games later with their deadline move). how do u expect Jokic to post a -20 when Denver almost never loses by 20+?

naturally this could be circular, meaning - Jokic is the reason they don't often lose by 20+ and that's def playing a part but it's not everything. When's the last time Luka had an off night? sure he's not as consistent as Jokic or SGA but he's been pretty consitent himself.

I believe that 37/10/11 with 63.5 TS% in last 15 games is more than pretty consistent.

Edit: I didn't count last game.

[zero rings]

Before was Brunson.

What's going on with on/off is really not that difficulty to understand. If your second best player plays on your position, your on/off will be never spectacular. But teams are mostly built differently, superstars are supported by good players in different positions. Just look at Denver or OKC.

Don't you think that's kinda difficult to carry every game average team? And yes, players in great teams have very rarely bad on court +/-, because their teams are rarely blown out.

In 2022 Jokic had a team full of guys who are now out of the league, and posted better on-court and on/off numbers than Luka ever has. By a lot.

If your argument is the Mavs’ backups are uniquely good, then they should be much better than a play-in team.

I'm claiming that not many players' backups are Brunson or Kyrie. What do you think would have happened with Luka's +/- on/of, if his backup was THJ and he was playing with Chet?

You can be pretty bad player and have fantastic on/off, if your replacement is even worse. And you can be very good player and your on/off will be average, if your replacement is good. Tell me is Tatum bad player, a lot worse than Luka this year?

Kyrie is a starter and so was Brunson his last year in Dallas. Almost every team in the league staggers their best players, so I don’t see how this is unique to Luka.

Again, the problem with Luka’s on/off stats isn’t that his backups are too good. The problem is the Mavs haven’t been that good when he is on the court. He has not yet provided the lift one would expect from an MVP player.

I repeat: Jokic had a better on-court rating with Barton/Green/Rivers/Campazzo as his running mates than Luka ever has in his career.