"Agreed. Free throws are my favorite because they're so intense and are really the best barometer of skill in the game of basketball." - darkie
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Sports NBA Thread: 2023-2024 Season
- Thread starter awyp
- Start date
Zest of Life
Banned deucer.
Latest ESPN draft projection excludes Bronny. How will this affect Lebrons legacy?
Zest of Life
Banned deucer.
Holy fuck that Lakers Q4 comeback was insane…the Clippers sold so fucking hard smfh
MJ is still my GOAT, but Bron doing these things at his age never ceases to blow my damn mind
MJ is still my GOAT, but Bron doing these things at his age never ceases to blow my damn mind
So I'm going to be real, Nuggets are closing in on the first seed and if they do its hard for me not to consider Jokic as this years MVP.
26 points, 12.3 rebounds, 93 assists shooting 58% from the field.
People are like omg why isn't tatum in the convo? uh because they just created a super team??? like why would the MVP go to the most stacked team in the NBA that defeats the purpose and the same argument goes with Giannis, this Nuggets team was pretty much built from the ground up. We'll see though if voters get tired of voting for Jokic but the next few weeks should be interesting.
26 points, 12.3 rebounds, 93 assists shooting 58% from the field.
People are like omg why isn't tatum in the convo? uh because they just created a super team??? like why would the MVP go to the most stacked team in the NBA that defeats the purpose and the same argument goes with Giannis, this Nuggets team was pretty much built from the ground up. We'll see though if voters get tired of voting for Jokic but the next few weeks should be interesting.
Nuggets just got the Lakers number man
we just witnessed prime cavs d wade
Austin Reaves had a defensive rating of 200 in the 2nd quarter against the Sacramento Kings and was a -23 for the quarter
His defense is not good. I'm not going to stop saying it.
His defense is not good. I'm not going to stop saying it.
Luka Doncic is MVP and its not really close.
The stats:
PPG: 34.7 - 1st, 3.5 points above next highest (SGA)
Points (Total) - 1st, 1943 pts. SGA has 6 less points with 6 less games played.
RPG: 9.0 - 1st among point guards, 18th overall
APG: 9.8 - 3rd in league, averaging 8 points more than trae with 10.8 apg and 13.9 more than hali with 11.4 apg.
SPG: 1.5 - 9th in league. Keep saying he's a cone on defense though
The only caveat to these stats is his efficiency, Sike, he's basically shooting 50/40.
Defense:
0.53 pts per possession allowed when defending (1st in league)
0.79 pts per possession when defending in isolation (10th in league)
The eye test? Luka haters main point when calling him out is his defense. If you actually watch him play defense he's AT WORST average. There are a lot of lowlights due to Jason Kidd working him like a slave every night but most of the time he is good defending. You aren't automatically a bad defender because you don't guard the 1st option (He still does sometimes), especially when there are just better options to guard those players.
Team Success:
They are the 8th seed so far, sure, but this somewhat says more about Luka than if they were a top 3 seed. Without him, the team would make the pistons and wizards look pretty good. They are also literally 2 wins away from the 5th seed which would make it pretty easy to argue him for mvp.
The stats:
PPG: 34.7 - 1st, 3.5 points above next highest (SGA)
Points (Total) - 1st, 1943 pts. SGA has 6 less points with 6 less games played.
RPG: 9.0 - 1st among point guards, 18th overall
APG: 9.8 - 3rd in league, averaging 8 points more than trae with 10.8 apg and 13.9 more than hali with 11.4 apg.
SPG: 1.5 - 9th in league. Keep saying he's a cone on defense though
The only caveat to these stats is his efficiency, Sike, he's basically shooting 50/40.
Defense:
0.53 pts per possession allowed when defending (1st in league)
0.79 pts per possession when defending in isolation (10th in league)
The eye test? Luka haters main point when calling him out is his defense. If you actually watch him play defense he's AT WORST average. There are a lot of lowlights due to Jason Kidd working him like a slave every night but most of the time he is good defending. You aren't automatically a bad defender because you don't guard the 1st option (He still does sometimes), especially when there are just better options to guard those players.
Team Success:
They are the 8th seed so far, sure, but this somewhat says more about Luka than if they were a top 3 seed. Without him, the team would make the pistons and wizards look pretty good. They are also literally 2 wins away from the 5th seed which would make it pretty easy to argue him for mvp.
I like this take because it explains what an MVP award should represent. A “most valuable” player doesn’t always line up with “the best” player, and for this award you (the person nominating the players) should look at which players are the most valuable to their franchises and how much individual players’ performances are impacting their team’s relative strength. Case in point, Luka’s adding more value to the Mavs than any other player adds to their own teams, and claiming otherwise would be a disservice to the value of offensive and defensive talent that is being provided to a team that would otherwise be contending for the top lottery pick. Honestly the dude kind of reminds me of how Shohei Ohtani was (one of) the only notable player(s) on the LA Angels for a decent amount of time. You put someone with Luka’s talent on a contender team, and they’re going to have some high expectations no doubt.
I'm not so sure I'd say it's something "not even close" when their playoff spot isn't even guaranteed at this point.
He's on his best run but the Mavs drop in spots and have a below .500 record since essentially the break? Idk if mvp is that easily zipped up yall
He's on his best run but the Mavs drop in spots and have a below .500 record since essentially the break? Idk if mvp is that easily zipped up yall
There is a sub 1% chance that mavs miss the playoffs according to http://www.playoffstatus.com/nba/mavericksstandings.html
If the mvp just went to the best player on the best team it would go to jayson tatum, who is averaging worse stats in every category incuding efficiency
A good inbetween is Jokic who is basically averaging an efficient 26 pt triple double, however, I find it hard to overlook what luka's done, and if luka was in jokers shoes in terms of having a great team surrounding him he would be a lot higher in standings.
If the mvp just went to the best player on the best team it would go to jayson tatum, who is averaging worse stats in every category incuding efficiency
A good inbetween is Jokic who is basically averaging an efficient 26 pt triple double, however, I find it hard to overlook what luka's done, and if luka was in jokers shoes in terms of having a great team surrounding him he would be a lot higher in standings.
It's worth noting that the MVP is typically said to be given to the "best-performing player" and not necessarily the player which adds the most value to their franchise. If the criteria you state was used, good players on superteams or even just good teams would never win MVPs, and good players on bad teams would win them all. This is exemplified by the fact that the NBA's current MVP ladder has Jokic and Shai at 1-2, as their performances stand out even among their already very good teams.
It should also definitely be noted that even with the NBA criteria in mind, the MVP is not always given to the best player on the best team, but it is damn hard to win it on a poor team. The only players since the turn of the century that have won MVP on a team below .600 are Westbrook and Jokic's first. Westbrook was a lock because he averaged a bona fide triple double; Jokic I would say is the outlier here. So, to summarize, to win an MVP you have to either 1. be the best player in the league on a team which is very good (and in spite of this, your talent shines through) or 2. you have to be so outlandishly good that you carry a team to seem like it is very good (as in Lebron's 09-10 MVP).
I will say that Luka has definitely leveled up this season, particularly on defense (bringing it to mediocre levels but not the outright travesty that were years of past) but also has just improved his game in many other ways; however, I don't really buy the argument that should Luka join an actually good team, his MVP stock would go up. I think depending on the team he goes to, his points and rebounds could decrease by a sizable amount; his assists would likely stay the same or perhaps even increase given he has more options to convert his passes.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but in a similar manner to, say, the NFL regular season MVP, I feel like the existing selection criteria would lend itself better to a "best performance" award (we can call it the BPP award) as opposed to a "most valuable" award. If the league wants to keep the existing criteria in place, that's fine, but it would feel like a more accurate representation of the state of the NBA's 30 franchises if the two sides of this coin were differentiated. And if someone comes along and happens to win the hypothetical BPP and MVP awards in the same season, hey, good for them. As it stands, all that I know for certain is that having players like Jokic and Shai in the running sends a message to underperforming franchises that the MVP award isn't as much about individual players' talent as much as it is how he contributes to a contending roster- a solid premise for a hypothetical BPP award, but not for an MVP award where Luka's arguably done more for his team than either of those two examples mentioned earlier.
I suppose that one way to remedy this would be for the NBA to have "Team MVP" awards in place of a singular league-wide accolade that won't always contribute to success in the postseason. I want to recognize Jokic, Shai, et cetera for what they're worth without undermining what individual stars can do for a rebuilding roster, and that feels like the most fair way to go about this. In my opinion, at least. I'm going to be honest, I don't know who a lot of the people in the modern NBA even are- I only just following the league again this season, so feel free to disagree with me because I inevitably won't know what I'm talking about compared to longer-time NBA fans.
The mvp also isn't going to the player with just the best stats either because we need to see your actual play contribute to winning.
If the award is about value, what stat proves Luka is contributing more wins to his team? What good is an mvp award if you are fighting for a play-in spot after being a top seed the first half of the season, going to the same position exactly a year later? What good is it to favor the MVP who, despite having 1% chance today, could still just lose two games and be out so as long as they aren't a top 6 seed? Great heliocentric offense and lazy defense will never win MVP unless you're James Harden with a top seed.
The balance between individual performance and win shares is necessary; that's why Tatum and Doncic aren't frontrunners. Jokic and SGA hold that balance much better while Tatum and Doncic operate at opposite ends.
Hmm... What is of greater worth in a basketball player? Having a good team around them that wins games, or having the best stats we've seen since... idk maybe Russ's MVP season? Oh wait, having a good team isn't a part of being the individual best basketball player :O . You win basketball games through scoring points, making assists and catching rebounds and Luka is the best at scoring, top 3 in assists and the best rebounder (for guards).
You calling his defense lazy just shows you don't actually watch him play / haven't for the past year. He's made a significant jump in defense and is at worst average, likely above average, which is all that should be expected from a "one way player". This was the main argument against Steph curry and James harden being among the best players in the league. Luka Doncic is 33rd in Defensive Win shares above elite defensive players like KD, PG and Lebron.
Stats: The metric I am using is team wins / individual win shares. Higher score indicates higher contribution to wins (think; shai wins okc 33% of games they play)
Luka: 36/9.8 = 3.67346938776
Shai: 45/13.5 = 3.33333333333
Jokic: 44/13.5 = 3.25925925926
Now think that win shares is a stat very much affected by games played. Luka trails Shai and Jokic by 7 and 6 games. Win shares are also given out to players who win often, these stats show how even though Luka doesn't win as often, he contributes a significant amount more to wins. This stat is semi team reliant because its based off your actual win count but the metric I used should be solid.
By your logic, if Wilt chamberlain was reborn and drafted by a team consisting of 6 Killian Hayes' and 4 Thanasis Antetokounmpo's and went on to average 70 pts 20 reb but get the 11th seed, they actually don't deserve MVP because if they were actually valuable their team would be a high seed. You see where your argument fall apart? MVP is an INDIVIDUAL award and as long as this INDIVIDUAL dominance keeps up, Luka should walk home with MVP.
Using the dictionary in your argument? Not touching that one. Mvp is subjective and changes in perception on how that is judged year to year, and I'm going to detail why I believe this. You bring up Westbrook's mvp season and I contested that one as well at the time, so don't go thinking I actually give any two craps about the significance of a heliocentric offense which is essentially what Luka is.
I'm glad you brought up Westbrook because I'm going to respond with broad strokes here. When it comes to mvp, I don't get so hung up on the stat to the decimal like you are. I look at what has primarily driven MVP forever which are: narrative and contribution to winning.
All this talk about individual stats to me is pointless. Westbrook's triple doubles were more meaningful in 2017 than Luka's in 2024. Why? League had a different pace, defensive and offensive rates back then. Westbrook was contributing more to wins and averaging a triple double was historic. He won it on narrative and a mix of him clearly contributing more to winning for that team after KD left.
Luka doesn't get that same perception 7 years later. Heliocentricism is now everywhere and he doesn't even do it the best despite having the highest usage rate in history now. How you have the ball more than ever, have a revamped roster, and play below .500 when you play better? That as a narrative test completely fails and there's no number you can point to that says "Luka is the obvious MVP". He's James Harden on a team with bad defense. We've seen that more than enough already, and now it's worth even less in today's league because the play is faster and the threes are plentiful. In 2024, playing like an amazing heliocentric God but literally falling in the standings will never, ever be "clear cut MVP". MVP is a mix of factors balancing out against themselves in relation to the rest of the players as well as the end result of the team. I ain't pointing to one type of metric only, and never will.
If he is in your books, fine. We clearly have a difference in how we see MVP perception. You are more rigid with the math and semantics about it while I'm more about the overall picture. He ain't winning though based on how winners are historically chosen is my only point. If your point is that he is individually amazing, congratulations on what we already know. We also know the end result of this team won't change after seeing how heliocentricism has historically worked in the West. It ain't good and it ain't that valuable anymore. I'm not saying anything else about this and just letting Dallas do Dallas things.
I'm glad you brought up Westbrook because I'm going to respond with broad strokes here. When it comes to mvp, I don't get so hung up on the stat to the decimal like you are. I look at what has primarily driven MVP forever which are: narrative and contribution to winning.
All this talk about individual stats to me is pointless. Westbrook's triple doubles were more meaningful in 2017 than Luka's in 2024. Why? League had a different pace, defensive and offensive rates back then. Westbrook was contributing more to wins and averaging a triple double was historic. He won it on narrative and a mix of him clearly contributing more to winning for that team after KD left.
Luka doesn't get that same perception 7 years later. Heliocentricism is now everywhere and he doesn't even do it the best despite having the highest usage rate in history now. How you have the ball more than ever, have a revamped roster, and play below .500 when you play better? That as a narrative test completely fails and there's no number you can point to that says "Luka is the obvious MVP". He's James Harden on a team with bad defense. We've seen that more than enough already, and now it's worth even less in today's league because the play is faster and the threes are plentiful. In 2024, playing like an amazing heliocentric God but literally falling in the standings will never, ever be "clear cut MVP". MVP is a mix of factors balancing out against themselves in relation to the rest of the players as well as the end result of the team. I ain't pointing to one type of metric only, and never will.
If he is in your books, fine. We clearly have a difference in how we see MVP perception. You are more rigid with the math and semantics about it while I'm more about the overall picture. He ain't winning though based on how winners are historically chosen is my only point. If your point is that he is individually amazing, congratulations on what we already know. We also know the end result of this team won't change after seeing how heliocentricism has historically worked in the West. It ain't good and it ain't that valuable anymore. I'm not saying anything else about this and just letting Dallas do Dallas things.
Last edited:
ngl ive read the convo above, and i have to go soon but i will say
luka is getting undermined for what he is doing just look at team record when he doesnt play, does luka deserve mvp? yeah if his team was doing better. i think itll go to jokic tbh
luka is playing much better defense and his numbers all around are better, he is a top 3 player in the league but tbh unless luka makes a crazy run and get to the 5th seed i dont think he will win it because as derrick said westbrooks mvp year his entire team was ass, he was the reason they made any sort of run. if jason kidd didnt exist i think luka prob wins mvp since the coaching is so bad
luka is getting undermined for what he is doing just look at team record when he doesnt play, does luka deserve mvp? yeah if his team was doing better. i think itll go to jokic tbh
luka is playing much better defense and his numbers all around are better, he is a top 3 player in the league but tbh unless luka makes a crazy run and get to the 5th seed i dont think he will win it because as derrick said westbrooks mvp year his entire team was ass, he was the reason they made any sort of run. if jason kidd didnt exist i think luka prob wins mvp since the coaching is so bad
Maybe I watch very different games as I often find him making multiple mental lapses on defense and whines to the refs. I will admit he's improved compared to recent years but it'll always be his best area for improvement if there was one.
Luka has improved overall so much that this is clearly his best season with the Mavs, so he is undermined in the sense that it has to be frustrating to see that and not see how he gets MVP. Triple doubles just have less value in a league with more possessions, pace and spacing compared to the one Westbrook won 7 years ago where averaging a triple double was unheard of.
It's just discouraging to see the Mavs be this bad defensively late in the season again when the explanation last year was not having enough defenders. Then they traded again and suddenly the floor fell in the house defensively.
To me, the team has a proportional amount of importance in helping a player get MVP. That's where the narrative reasons are really at play. The player's greatness has more value, but that player still needs the team to be good enough to have that individual greatness translate to wins on the chart if that makes sense. All teams have an overall better record with their player, but the MVP is still attached to essentially telling the story of the season. The story of the season will never be, Luka had his best season, but Mavs hardly got better and in fact slumped as a team throughout the season.
Tl;Dr again, the value from my perspective comes in through the player's stats and the amount of wins for the team, because I consider both together more valuable than just having way more of one. You can be MVP for that team, but MVP of a league to me requires wins.
Luka has improved overall so much that this is clearly his best season with the Mavs, so he is undermined in the sense that it has to be frustrating to see that and not see how he gets MVP. Triple doubles just have less value in a league with more possessions, pace and spacing compared to the one Westbrook won 7 years ago where averaging a triple double was unheard of.
It's just discouraging to see the Mavs be this bad defensively late in the season again when the explanation last year was not having enough defenders. Then they traded again and suddenly the floor fell in the house defensively.
To me, the team has a proportional amount of importance in helping a player get MVP. That's where the narrative reasons are really at play. The player's greatness has more value, but that player still needs the team to be good enough to have that individual greatness translate to wins on the chart if that makes sense. All teams have an overall better record with their player, but the MVP is still attached to essentially telling the story of the season. The story of the season will never be, Luka had his best season, but Mavs hardly got better and in fact slumped as a team throughout the season.
Tl;Dr again, the value from my perspective comes in through the player's stats and the amount of wins for the team, because I consider both together more valuable than just having way more of one. You can be MVP for that team, but MVP of a league to me requires wins.
Last edited:
Since I'm kind of an NBA noob, take this hot take with lots of purifying salt, but I'm not sure I get the point or hype around the whole MVP thing.
To me, it seems to just show which teams put the most eggs in one basket.
Personally I rather be a fan of a team that has a culture of keeping a 'skill' / 'plus-minus' / whatever average pretty high among all its starters, instead of a team that like lives and dies by one player.
There's probably something big that I'm totally missing, though.
To me, it seems to just show which teams put the most eggs in one basket.
Personally I rather be a fan of a team that has a culture of keeping a 'skill' / 'plus-minus' / whatever average pretty high among all its starters, instead of a team that like lives and dies by one player.
There's probably something big that I'm totally missing, though.
MVP is strictly for individual legacy for a player and usually gets brought up when comparing some of the greatest of all time. That's genuinely it though.
That's why players like Steve Nash get brought up a lot on list of best point guards of all time (since he won 2)
Derrick Rose is the biggest what if story if all time if he didn't get injured and is constantly being brought up as the most athletic guard of all time. (he is the youngest MVP ever)
Derrick Rose is the biggest what if story if all time if he didn't get injured and is constantly being brought up as the most athletic guard of all time. (he is the youngest MVP ever)
Derrick Rose's injury crushed me
it hurt watching that mavs vs thunder game cus I know if luka was playing mavs would've won...that team is only like 2 real hitters luka and kyrie no one ever really goes for a big number expect like tim hardaway ive yet to see washington act as the 3rd best player on the team...
PJ HAD 6 FUCKING POINTS