All-NBA discussion

[Johnny Tomala]

All-NBA 1st Team: SGA, Mitchell, Tatum, Giannis, Jokić
All-NBA 2nd Team: Cunningham, Edwards, LBJ, Mobley, KAT
All-NBA 3rd Team: Curry, Brunson, JJJ, Jalen WIlliams, Şengün

[brackdan70]

The people without LeBron on their all-NBA teams have to be trolling… just absurd.

He is somewhere 13-18th best player this season. It’s not absurd at all.

Please list those 17 players who are better than LeBron.

He’s averaging 24/8/8 on 60% TS, and plays on a contender.

Impact stats have him 16th in LEBRON WAR, 27th in EPM Wins.
SGA
JOKIC
Tatum
Giannis
Mitchell
Harden
Haliburton
Towns
Edwards
Mobley
Williams
Are all clearly having better seasons than him imo.
White, Allen, Zubac, Curry, Garland, Sabonis, LBJ, Cade, JJJ, Senguin and a few others are in a tight range imo. It comes down to whether you favor impact stats, traditional stats, or legacy and how you weigh those.
I said I think this season he is 13-18. 15 guys make all NBA. It’s not absurd to leave LBJ out.

[iggymcfrack]

The people without LeBron on their all-NBA teams have to be trolling… just absurd.

He is somewhere 13-18th best player this season. It’s not absurd at all.

Please list those 17 players who are better than LeBron.

He’s averaging 24/8/8 on 60% TS, and plays on a contender.

He plays on a contender because they play well when he’s on the bench. Let’s look at how well the Lakers play with LeBron on the court compared to how other stars’ teams have played when their stars are out there this year:

Magic with Wagner: +5.8
Spurs with Wemby: +2.9
Kings with Sabonis: +2.7
Bulls with LaVine: +1.0
Heat with Herro: +0.5
Hawks with Trae: -0.2
Lakers with LeBron -0.5
Suns with Durant: -1.0

[Charlie Sollers]

He is somewhere 13-18th best player this season. It’s not absurd at all.

Please list those 17 players who are better than LeBron.

He’s averaging 24/8/8 on 60% TS, and plays on a contender.

He plays on a contender because they play well when he’s on the bench. Let’s look at how well the Lakers play with LeBron on the court compared to how other stars’ teams have played when their stars are out there this year:

Magic with Wagner: +5.8
Spurs with Wemby: +2.9
Kings with Sabonis: +2.7
Bulls with LaVine: +1.0
Heat with Herro: +0.5
Hawks with Trae: -0.2
Lakers with LeBron -0.5
Suns with Durant: -1.0

Exactly. Remove LeBron from this team and they improve dramatically.

[CobraCommander]

He is somewhere 13-18th best player this season. It’s not absurd at all.

Please list those 17 players who are better than LeBron.

He’s averaging 24/8/8 on 60% TS, and plays on a contender.

He plays on a contender because they play well when he’s on the bench. Let’s look at how well the Lakers play with LeBron on the court compared to how other stars’ teams have played when their stars are out there this year:

Magic with Wagner: +5.8
Spurs with Wemby: +2.9
Kings with Sabonis: +2.7
Bulls with LaVine: +1.0
Heat with Herro: +0.5
Hawks with Trae: -0.2
Lakers with LeBron -0.5
Suns with Durant: -1.0

Now do the exact same thing with them on the bench -

[cupcakesnake]

This isn’t true at all. Tatum’s still a consensus top 4 player by almost everyone and Jaylen Brown has become wildly overrated. I saw a topic on Reddit the other day where someone was trying to argue he was better than ANT. I feel like he’s a consensus top 15 player among casual fans now when I wouldn’t even put him in the top 40.

I think once we get deep into the top 40, the rankings smooth out and get a little pointless. I'm someone who has fun keeping track of my own personal player rankings in a spead sheet, but once I get into the mid 20s....I can make cases for anyone to be above almost anyone from 25-40, you know? I can see all the hater arguments for Brown (I subscribe to some of them myself), but I don't think anyone is stupid if they value Brown as closer to 20 than 40. For me he's in a tier of borderline all-NBA guys. That tier just happens to include 20+ players, lol.

I certainty don’t think anyone’s stupid for having Jaylen Brown in the 20s. A lot of people will have him top 15 though which is just nonsense. Right now in the Big 3 thread here, someone was trying to argue that he was much better than Jalen Williams. Like WTF?!

I look at Jaylen and I can’t get past that the Celtics have been better with him on the bench than on the floor for 6 straight postseasons and that on the whole they’ve been better with him on the bench in the regular season too. That he’s the worst shooter on the team and generally ranks toward the bottom of the team in BPM too.

I’m sure he could provide decent value on a team desperate for scoring like Orlando, but he really doesn’t seem to have any impact for Boston at all. I don’t think he’s as valuable as Kristaps Porzingis or Payton Pritchard, let alone Derrick White.

Ya, I think having him in the top 15 or over Jalen Williams requires some mental gymnastics. Jalen and Jaylen have some similarities, but J.Dub has vastly superior ball handling and does a lot more on defense. I think Brown is good enough, that it's fine to compare him to tons of guys in the top 15, but to make an argument that he's better than any of them is more difficult.

Probably the best thing about J.Brown is the scoring resilience he brings with his strong driving game and strong pull up counter. 1-on-1 he's hard for most defenders to stop, and in the Celtics system, he doesn't even have to attack 1-on-1 that offense because he's usually finishing off a stretched out, scrambled defense. The Celtics create so much easy offense with spacing and multitude of smart playmakers, so night-to-night, Jaylen Brown's skillet is the least crucial. Who needs his tough offense when you have easy offense? However, against tougher defenses that can take away Boston's favorite plays, Jaylen Brown is the ace up their sleeves. When Boston has to win grimey, that's when you really like having a super strong, brutal scorer.

The rest of the time, Jaylen is there basically absorbing scoring volume pretty meaninglessly. They can run their base offense and defense without him, and almost every other Celtic does something more crucial night-to-night. I don't think that means Jaylen Brown isn't good, it's just that his value on the Celtics is more of a bonus than integral. He's a floor raiser on a team that doesn't spend much time near their floor. The man always seems to be healthy as an ox when the playoffs roll around too. His scoring efficiency doesn't drop for the playoffs (even goes up a bit). When the defenses key on Tatum more, Brown is ready to punish teams for that.

[cupcakesnake]

Please list those 17 players who are better than LeBron.

He’s averaging 24/8/8 on 60% TS, and plays on a contender.

He plays on a contender because they play well when he’s on the bench. Let’s look at how well the Lakers play with LeBron on the court compared to how other stars’ teams have played when their stars are out there this year:

Magic with Wagner: +5.8
Spurs with Wemby: +2.9
Kings with Sabonis: +2.7
Bulls with LaVine: +1.0
Heat with Herro: +0.5
Hawks with Trae: -0.2
Lakers with LeBron -0.5
Suns with Durant: -1.0

Now do the exact same thing with them on the bench -

Magic without Wagner: -6.4
Spurs without Wemby: -6.7
Kings without Sabonis: -3.0
Bulls without LaVine: -3.39
Heat witouth Herro: -1.1
Hawks without Trae: -4.5
Lakers without LeBron +5.79
Suns without Durant: -6.7

The +/- case for Lebron this year is brutal. It's never been this way his entire career. This year, whatever the reason is, it's a fact that the Lakers beat their opponents more efficiently with Lebron on the bench.

I don't tend to overreact to +/- data over single seasons without a better understanding of why the numbers are saying that, and confirming it's not just noise or related to obvious lineup flaws. If someone wants to make a case against Lebron being all-NBA this year, this is still a good place to start.

[CobraCommander]

He plays on a contender because they play well when he’s on the bench. Let’s look at how well the Lakers play with LeBron on the court compared to how other stars’ teams have played when their stars are out there this year:

Magic with Wagner: +5.8
Spurs with Wemby: +2.9
Kings with Sabonis: +2.7
Bulls with LaVine: +1.0
Heat with Herro: +0.5
Hawks with Trae: -0.2
Lakers with LeBron -0.5
Suns with Durant: -1.0

Now do the exact same thing with them on the bench -

Magic without Wagner: -6.4
Spurs without Wemby: -6.7
Kings without Sabonis: -3.0
Bulls without LaVine: -3.39
Heat witouth Herro: -1.1
Hawks without Trae: -4.5
Lakers without LeBron +5.79
Suns without Durant: -6.7

The +/- case for Lebron this year is brutal. It's never been this way his entire career. This year, whatever the reason is, it's a fact that the Lakers beat their opponents more efficiently with Lebron on the bench.

I don't tend to overreact to +/- data over single seasons without a better understanding of why the numbers are saying that, and confirming it's not just noise or related to obvious lineup flaws. If someone wants to make a case against Lebron being all-NBA this year, this is still a good place to start.

I was pulling numbers in between meetings and felt like you were on to something - I looked at previous years and sure enough, this is uniquely bad for a LeBron year. Also looked at the other MVP and All NBA guys and they all fall in line - SGA in first by a mile - jokic up there - and the absence of LeBron is glaring - thanks

[Mavrelous]

This isn’t true at all. Tatum’s still a consensus top 4 player by almost everyone and Jaylen Brown has become wildly overrated. I saw a topic on Reddit the other day where someone was trying to argue he was better than ANT. I feel like he’s a consensus top 15 player among casual fans now when I wouldn’t even put him in the top 40.

I think once we get deep into the top 40, the rankings smooth out and get a little pointless. I'm someone who has fun keeping track of my own personal player rankings in a spead sheet, but once I get into the mid 20s....I can make cases for anyone to be above almost anyone from 25-40, you know? I can see all the hater arguments for Brown (I subscribe to some of them myself), but I don't think anyone is stupid if they value Brown as closer to 20 than 40. For me he's in a tier of borderline all-NBA guys. That tier just happens to include 20+ players, lol.

I certainty don’t think anyone’s stupid for having Jaylen Brown in the 20s. A lot of people will have him top 15 though which is just nonsense. Right now in the Big 3 thread here, someone was trying to argue that he was much better than Jalen Williams. Like WTF?!

I look at Jaylen and I can’t get past that the Celtics have been better with him on the bench than on the floor for 6 straight postseasons and that on the whole they’ve been better with him on the bench in the regular season too. That he’s the worst shooter on the team and generally ranks toward the bottom of the team in BPM too.

I’m sure he could provide decent value on a team desperate for scoring like Orlando, but he really doesn’t seem to have any impact for Boston at all. I don’t think he’s as valuable as Kristaps Porzingis or Payton Pritchard, let alone Derrick White.

On/off isn't meant to be used the way you use.
A 30+ MPG starter who has 8+/9+ net rating (last year and this year), and finished the PO with ~7 net rating, on a 60+ wins team, and a championship winning team, where he was picked as the MVP both in CF anf Finals, on/off is really, really, really not an indicative stat, and amounts to mostly noise, especially, if it's negative, because what is actually non-sense, is to conclude from negative on/off of player with such profile, that his team is better with Brown off court.

[cpower]

The Curry PR is so strong.

So many in media have started making the push for him for All-NBA first team. Edwards deserves it pretty easily. He has better numbers than Curry while being a better defender.

Both Curry and LeBron belong to All-NBA second team and should have no chance for first team. If you are rewarding team success then pick Donovan Mitchell otherwise pick Edwards.

Which numbers are those? These are the main ones I looked at:

Curry: 5.0 EPM, 11.9 EW, 6.4 BPM, 5.7 net rating, +5.3 on/off

ANT: 3.1 EPM, 11.5 EW, 4.1 BPM, 4.0 net rating, -2.1 on/off

I felt like the last 1st team spot was between Curry, Mitchell, and Mobley, and after long deliberation I gave it to Curry. ANT I was debating with JW, JJJ, and Zubac over which one to drop to 3rd team before finally dropping Zubac.

curry and the warriors were left for dead until the jimmy butler trade

the other names in edwards and mitchell were more consistent. but of course the nba media changes what the criteria is each time lol

Curry led a bottom 5 team to a .50 record, and with Butler they jumped to a top 10 team, there is nothing wrong with that. They were 6th in offense with Curry and dead last without. How is Edwards and Mitchell more consistent when both of them had a not so efficient year? Mitch 57%TS, ANT 59%TS, Curry 61%TS

[Mavrelous]

Which numbers are those? These are the main ones I looked at:

Curry: 5.0 EPM, 11.9 EW, 6.4 BPM, 5.7 net rating, +5.3 on/off

ANT: 3.1 EPM, 11.5 EW, 4.1 BPM, 4.0 net rating, -2.1 on/off

I felt like the last 1st team spot was between Curry, Mitchell, and Mobley, and after long deliberation I gave it to Curry. ANT I was debating with JW, JJJ, and Zubac over which one to drop to 3rd team before finally dropping Zubac.

curry and the warriors were left for dead until the jimmy butler trade

the other names in edwards and mitchell were more consistent. but of course the nba media changes what the criteria is each time lol

Curry led a bottom 5 team to a .50 record, and with Butler they jumped to a top 10 team, there is nothing wrong with that. They were 6th in offense with Curry and dead last without. How is Edwards and Mitchell more consistent when both of them had a not so efficient year? Mitch 57%TS, ANT 59%TS, Curry 61%TS

GSW were 6-3 without Curry pre trade on an above average difficulty schedule, including very close loss to OKC, that's not a bottom 5 team by any stretch.

[cpower]

curry and the warriors were left for dead until the jimmy butler trade

the other names in edwards and mitchell were more consistent. but of course the nba media changes what the criteria is each time lol

Curry led a bottom 5 team to a .50 record, and with Butler they jumped to a top 10 team, there is nothing wrong with that. They were 6th in offense with Curry and dead last without. How is Edwards and Mitchell more consistent when both of them had a not so efficient year? Mitch 57%TS, ANT 59%TS, Curry 61%TS

GSW were 6-3 without Curry pre trade on an above average difficulty schedule, including very close loss to OKC, that's not a bottom 5 team by any stretch.

They were 6th in offense with Curry and dead last without...looking at a few game is cherry picking..on top of these wins either happened in early season vs bad teams or teams missing the best player.
[x]

Read on Twitter

[/x]

[Mavrelous]

Curry led a bottom 5 team to a .50 record, and with Butler they jumped to a top 10 team, there is nothing wrong with that. They were 6th in offense with Curry and dead last without. How is Edwards and Mitchell more consistent when both of them had a not so efficient year? Mitch 57%TS, ANT 59%TS, Curry 61%TS

GSW were 6-3 without Curry pre trade on an above average difficulty schedule, including very close loss to OKC, that's not a bottom 5 team by any stretch.

They were 6th in offense with Curry and dead last without...looking at a few game is cherry picking..on top of these wins either happened in early season vs bad teams or teams missing the best player.

9 games is not a small sample, that's ~15% of games pre trade and they weren't easy games, it's not cherry picking.
Cherry picking would be focusing on how much they are worse on offense w/o him, while ignoring they are much better on defense also w/o him.

They were 6th in offense with Curry and dead last without...looking at a few game is cherry picking..on top of these wins either happened in early season vs bad teams or teams missing the best player.
[x]

Read on Twitter

[/x]

This is the same method used in MVP thread WRT Jokic.
This doesn't mean the Warriors playing w/o Curry full game are actually the worst offense in the NBA, this is an extrapolation, and when your extrapolation gives you an opposite result of reality, you don't ignore reality, you ignore the extrapolation.

[cpower]

someone is ignoring the fact just trolling at the moment. I bet yall making bad take without actually watching any warriors game, their best young players Podz and JK are putting up below league efficiency (55%, 53%TS) and struggle to score on lottery teams. Just terrible take.

[iggymcfrack]

I think once we get deep into the top 40, the rankings smooth out and get a little pointless. I'm someone who has fun keeping track of my own personal player rankings in a spead sheet, but once I get into the mid 20s....I can make cases for anyone to be above almost anyone from 25-40, you know? I can see all the hater arguments for Brown (I subscribe to some of them myself), but I don't think anyone is stupid if they value Brown as closer to 20 than 40. For me he's in a tier of borderline all-NBA guys. That tier just happens to include 20+ players, lol.

I certainty don’t think anyone’s stupid for having Jaylen Brown in the 20s. A lot of people will have him top 15 though which is just nonsense. Right now in the Big 3 thread here, someone was trying to argue that he was much better than Jalen Williams. Like WTF?!

I look at Jaylen and I can’t get past that the Celtics have been better with him on the bench than on the floor for 6 straight postseasons and that on the whole they’ve been better with him on the bench in the regular season too. That he’s the worst shooter on the team and generally ranks toward the bottom of the team in BPM too.

I’m sure he could provide decent value on a team desperate for scoring like Orlando, but he really doesn’t seem to have any impact for Boston at all. I don’t think he’s as valuable as Kristaps Porzingis or Payton Pritchard, let alone Derrick White.

On/off isn't meant to be used the way you use.
A 30+ MPG starter who has 8+/9+ net rating (last year and this year), and finished the PO with ~7 net rating, on a 60+ wins team, and a championship winning team, where he was picked as the MVP both in CF anf Finals, on/off is really, really, really not an indicative stat, and amounts to mostly noise, especially, if it's negative, because what is actually non-sense, is to conclude from negative on/off of player with such profile, that his team is better with Brown off court.

He consistently has poor on/off over a 6 year sample while also consistently having some of the worst box stats on the team as well. That’s not indicative of something? Again I’m not saying he’s garbage or that he couldn’t be effective in the right situation, but I think it’s pretty clear that he’s not one of the 40 best players in the NBA.

[cgf]

Curry led a bottom 5 team to a .50 record, and with Butler they jumped to a top 10 team, there is nothing wrong with that. They were 6th in offense with Curry and dead last without. How is Edwards and Mitchell more consistent when both of them had a not so efficient year? Mitch 57%TS, ANT 59%TS, Curry 61%TS

GSW were 6-3 without Curry pre trade on an above average difficulty schedule, including very close loss to OKC, that's not a bottom 5 team by any stretch.

They were 6th in offense with Curry and dead last without...looking at a few game is cherry picking..on top of these wins either happened in early season vs bad teams or teams missing the best player.
[x]

Read on Twitter

[/x]

Isn’t that also true of their wins with Butler?

[Mavrelous]

I certainty don’t think anyone’s stupid for having Jaylen Brown in the 20s. A lot of people will have him top 15 though which is just nonsense. Right now in the Big 3 thread here, someone was trying to argue that he was much better than Jalen Williams. Like WTF?!

I look at Jaylen and I can’t get past that the Celtics have been better with him on the bench than on the floor for 6 straight postseasons and that on the whole they’ve been better with him on the bench in the regular season too. That he’s the worst shooter on the team and generally ranks toward the bottom of the team in BPM too.

I’m sure he could provide decent value on a team desperate for scoring like Orlando, but he really doesn’t seem to have any impact for Boston at all. I don’t think he’s as valuable as Kristaps Porzingis or Payton Pritchard, let alone Derrick White.

On/off isn't meant to be used the way you use.
A 30+ MPG starter who has 8+/9+ net rating (last year and this year), and finished the PO with ~7 net rating, on a 60+ wins team, and a championship winning team, where he was picked as the MVP both in CF anf Finals, on/off is really, really, really not an indicative stat, and amounts to mostly noise, especially, if it's negative, because what is actually non-sense, is to conclude from negative on/off of player with such profile, that his team is better with Brown off court.

He consistently has poor on/off over a 6 year sample while also consistently having some of the worst box stats on the team as well. That’s not indicative of something? Again I’m not saying he’s garbage or that he couldn’t be effective in the right situation, but I think it’s pretty clear that he’s not one of the 40 best players in the NBA.

It isn't indicative...
He has very good net rating, his team generates garbage time consistently, he's the starter on a very good team, what happens in his off portion is really not interesting and not indicative of anything.
Tatum also had negstive on/off last year, it's a stacked team, and has been stacked for 3 years.

[f4p]

GSW were 6-3 without Curry pre trade on an above average difficulty schedule, including very close loss to OKC, that's not a bottom 5 team by any stretch.

They were 6th in offense with Curry and dead last without...looking at a few game is cherry picking..on top of these wins either happened in early season vs bad teams or teams missing the best player.

9 games is not a small sample, that's ~15% of games pre trade and they weren't easy games, it's not cherry picking.
Cherry picking would be focusing on how much they are worse on offense w/o him, while ignoring they are much better on defense also w/o him.

They were 6th in offense with Curry and dead last without...looking at a few game is cherry picking..on top of these wins either happened in early season vs bad teams or teams missing the best player.
[x]

Read on Twitter

[/x]

This is the same method used in MVP thread WRT Jokic.
This doesn't mean the Warriors playing w/o Curry full game are actually the worst offense in the NBA, this is an extrapolation, and when your extrapolation gives you an opposite result of reality, you don't ignore reality, you ignore the extrapolation.

Exactly, they would be hopeless without him but somehow are over 0.500 without him can't both make sense. And they were under 0.500 with him before the Butler trade. Steph being first team is just living off reputation or pretending the cosmic shift in the warriors just accidentally happened right when they got Butler but was somehow because of Steph.

[HotelVitale]

GSW were 6-3 without Curry pre trade on an above average difficulty schedule, including very close loss to OKC, that's not a bottom 5 team by any stretch.

They were 6th in offense with Curry and dead last without...looking at a few game is cherry picking..on top of these wins either happened in early season vs bad teams or teams missing the best player.

9 games is not a small sample, that's ~15% of games pre trade and they weren't easy games, it's not cherry picking.
Cherry picking would be focusing on how much they are worse on offense w/o him, while ignoring they are much better on defense also w/o him.

It's not huge, but it looks like they beat the Pelicans twice, the Jazz, the Grizz without Ja, and the Rockets twice, and lost to the Hawks and Heat. To my eyes the small sample there is literally 2-3 solid wins.

[Mavrelous]

They were 6th in offense with Curry and dead last without...looking at a few game is cherry picking..on top of these wins either happened in early season vs bad teams or teams missing the best player.

9 games is not a small sample, that's ~15% of games pre trade and they weren't easy games, it's not cherry picking.
Cherry picking would be focusing on how much they are worse on offense w/o him, while ignoring they are much better on defense also w/o him.

It's not huge, but it looks like they beat the Pelicans twice, the Jazz, the Grizz without Ja, and the Rockets twice, and lost to the Hawks and Heat. To my eyes the small sample there is literally 2-3 solid wins.

And lost close games to the Tbunder.
For the claim that Warriors are bottom 5 team w/o Steph, this is large enough sample to say the claim is wrong.