2023-24 NBA Season Discussion

[lessthanjake]

None of the top five SRS teams even made the Finals last year, and the Celtics were the only one to make the conference finals. Over the past 20 postseasons, the #1 SRS team has won 7 times (2005, 2007, 2008, 2014, 2015, 2017). It is a better marker than having the most wins (6 times) or having the MVP (4 times), but telling how all people seem to be able to do with the Celtics is blandly say they are 10 SRS and therefore by rule should be favoured over the western conference representative (again, this is a separate thought from them having the best odds because they comfortably the most likely team to reaching the Finals).

I think this is a fair point—i.e. that the #1 SRS team actually usually doesn’t win. But I’d note a couple things here:

1. The #1 SRS team usually doesn’t have anywhere near the 2024 Celtics’ SRS. And if you surveyed the teams that have had SRS that was as high or close to as high as the 2024 Celtics, you’ll find that most of them did actually win the title. For reference, every single team that had at least as high an SRS as the 2024 Celtics has won the title (and they all won it with ease too), and if we instead expand it out and look at 9+ SRS teams then it is 9 out of 14—and I note that one of the 5 that didn’t win lost to one of the 9 that did (i.e. the 1972 Bucks losing to the 1972 Lakers), and another one of the 5 had a major superstar out for the playoffs (i.e. Westbrook being injured in 2013). The point with the Celtics isn’t that they’ll win because they had the #1 SRS this season. It’s more about just how high their SRS was. It’s rarified air.

2. They don’t have the best odds just because they have an easy road to the Finals. As another poster pointed out, if you cross-reference their odds of making the Finals and their odds of winning the Finals, it indicates that the odds have the Celtics with a 65% chance of winning the Finals if they make it. Of course, a lot happens before that, so who knows what the Finals odds will actually ultimately be, but at this point I think the most likely outcome is that they’d be the betting favorites in the Finals against anyone (assuming of course that the Celtics make the Finals).

[Heej]

And by the way, we’ve been over this Jokic ball-handling thing over and over. Jokic does not have a ball-handling issue. The man frequently runs the break. And I’ve pointed you to Ben Taylor talking about how Jokic’s ball-handling metrics are a complete outlier for centers, such that he looks like a guard in the data. Which is, of course, more valuable than a guard having that ball-handling skill, because ball-handling is significantly more valuable at a position that teams don’t normally have it. We’ve been over this before. It is a legitimate strength in Jokic’s game, which you have decided to latch onto as a perceived negative, likely because you’re struggling to come up with things to validate your preconceived views about Jokic. The fact that he had some turnovers in a couple games really doesn’t disprove this at all—obviously a couple games is basically meaningless for any broader argument about anything.

I don't really agree with the point that Jokic being an all time great ballhandler for a center is significantly more valuable due to the fact that other centers can't do it, excepting of course the fact that he's generating value by grabbing rebounds and lumbering up the floor on the break. Functionally Jokic isn't breaking down defenses from the perimeter and is wholly incapable of doing so against swarms anyway once he makes 1 or 2 dribbles because he often gets stonewalled at the nail and has to reset whenever he tries.

Basketball is getting closer and closer to positionless in many respects now anyway, and asking Jokic to handle the ball just because he's good for a center doesn't actually make sense or provide value the way you think it does vs the other all time offensive players he's compared to since it takes away from better ballhandlers. In special circumstances like pushing on the break I can see it, but that's not happening often.

Functionally I find Embiid a more useful ballhandler because he has a disgusting face up game that can be activated from the nail which makes it much harder for teams to swarm him the way they've done Jokic postups the last 2 series'.

[The High Cyde]

Embiid as good as he is runs out of gas in second halves and can’t stay healthy in the postseason when it counts. I’ve seen him get the ball stripped many times from the blind side over the years. He only started to face up more cause Nurse probably drilled it into his head. He’s still not on Jokic’s tier, who can manage the entire game. Probably the only thing Embiid does better is hunt for and draw fouls. Defense of course, but you have to be healthy and available when the games actually matter. Jokic can face up too, with a sambor shuffle step back that’s just as unguardable as Embiids face up, he’s just better at being an offensive hub without needing to pull that rabbit out of his hat so often.

We’ll see how Embiid does next playoffs with a better Robin in Maxey and more team cohesion under Nurse.

[AEnigma]

Sure, don't mean to imply moving well =/= not hurt at all, but I also don't think he looked hobbled enough to continue to play this poorly and deserve to have it excused. As a fellow Luka fan, it's infuriating to watch. He'd probably had 7+ of his worst 10 career playoff games this postseason.

Not really seeing the basis for that. I have generally been impressed by how he has been reasonably effective despite visible limitations (at least relative to 2021/22).

It's crazy to me that the guy playing significantly better is the one getting trashed.

The other guy has higher standards by virtue of being a more established player and by virtue of being healthier.

And there is a point where playing through injury leaves you open to criticism — hello, Embiid! — but I similarly felt there was little cause to excessively rip on Giannis for last year’s Heat series. Being outplayed by Jimmy Butler is criticism in itself, just like being outplayed by Shai is criticism in itself, and Jokic generally being outplayed by Edwards and not clearly outplaying Lebron is criticism in itself.

Everyone wants to be ready with the hot takes, but if no one has a specific criticism of how Luka is playing, then no, he probably does not merit much of it. His defence has not been a particular liability outside of that first Clippers game. He is still creating good looks for his teammates, although I do feel a lot of that is a product of preexisting reputation rather than a reflection of what he can do right now. Ball control has been generally normal, although last game was rougher. So primary criticism I see is basically just shot-making, and… yeah, I am not really worried about healthy Luka’s ability to be an elite shot-maker. I do not see it as a real weakness teams can reliably exploit.

If the truth is that Luka just melts in the face of strong Canadian wing defenders, then that might be a long-term concern — but I will need a larger sample to call it a legitimate trend. If Luka goes on to become habitually injured in the postseason, then that is a long-term concern too. But as a relative one-off, where you are not articulating specific concerns in approach or ability, what is there to really say other than you hope he is in a better state next year.

The difference in standards is lesser than the difference in quality of play so far. One guy is the best player in the world and has arguably been the best player in the postseason. The other is top 3 player who wouldn't make all playoff 3rd team.

And one has been repeatedly called the greatest or second-great peak in league history, and the other probably is seen around… top 30? I know you do not see him that way, but that is pretty much the entire reason why there is backlash. It is not merely the standard of an MVP anymore, because a good chunk of the broader RealGM forum seems to have lost the ability to assess players past BPM. For an MVP-winning player with a top twenty peak, no, I have no strong criticisms of his play thus far. Same principles apply when looking at Shaq as a top ten peak versus “greatest peak ever”. Former, yeah, whatever, he had pnr weaknesses but still won a bunch anyway. Latter, we are suddenly not so blasé.

Additionally, not that it changes the point, but I would not call Luka a set top three player outside of how he settled in there because of (at this point expected) injured seasons from Embiid and Giannis.

List of specific concerns for you: settling for far too many jumpers, mid-range and post-game have tanked,

Which seems highly tied to injury.

too careless with the ball,

Pretty standard for him; that has been a long-held criticism and has not gone away.

repeated blow bys are constantly stressing the team's help defense (LAC G1, G4, last night off the top of my head),

Again, pretty standard issue, although in this case his defence has generally been better than expected and I would say it has been a more meaningful issue with the point of comparison here.

not putting nearly enough pressure on defenses himself,

Going back to injury.

way too many silly fouls,

Again an area where I feel he has done that less than he previously has, but “silly foul” is a pretty open standard.

and taking himself out of plays with whining that's over the top even for him.

Which has been by far the most common (and deserved) complaint.

If you want to handwave away shot-making from the league's top scorer, fine, but I'll hold him to a superstar standard, which for some reason only applies to Jokic, even though he's playing like one.

It was also held to Lebron, Embiid, and would have been held to Giannis had he been around to play. I suspect Steph too.

Not sure how you can say the bolded then critique Jokic, a better playoff performer,

I would not have committed to that assessment prior to last year.

with more past success,

Basically just last year.

more current success, and doing more against better competition, all by a wide margin.

Like I said, hard for me to get worked up about that when one person in the comparison is significantly hampered.

I won't even humor LeBron having an argument for outplaying Jokic, but as far as Ant goes, he's having the run of his career so far and all that's led to is a tied series. **** happens. No top player has been the best player in every series they've played,

I would say Edwards is having “the run of his career” because he is 22, but most top players also do not so reliably help the opposing superstar have “the run of his career”.

and he still may win that series regardless, by being the best player.

Or he may win because the team around him has provided more support than the team around Edwards.

For how much of "a liability" his defense has allegedly been, it's weird how both LA and Min are below their RS ORTG,

Do you feel it is Jokic’s spectacular defence that held Towns to 27 combined points over the past two games? Is he the reason McDaniels, Conley, and NAW are all shooting significantly worse than they did in the regular season? He strategically let Lebron and Davis do pretty much whatever they wanted because he knew that it would cause the rest of the Lakers to go cold?

Stop trying to “win” the discussion by just grabbing at any number that could abstractly support your position. Do you feel Jokic has been a good defender? Do you feel he has made life tougher for these offences? Do you feel they are not treating him as a target or otherwise that he is not justifying being treated like a target? The Wolves’ offence is still producing results better than Denver’s regular season defence, even with sub-par shooting performances from everyone other than Edwards.

Teams can blend in different ways. The 2003 Blazers had a +13 rOrtg against the Mavericks… and the 2003 Mavericks had a +12 oRtg against the Blazers. Does that mean we have no need to analyse their respective offences anymore? Should we conclude both teams mutually produced on one end and mutually collapsed on the other end? We should have no criticisms for Nash and Finley for performing poorly on offence for their standards because, well, still a +12 oRtg!

Teams do not scheme to hit x marker on offence or defence. “Yeah, guys, we lost, and they scored a bunch because of your weak rim protection — but those points do not matter because our net results on defence were better than regular season expectations.” I do not believe that you think success or failure should be measured that way, so please do not pretend you do simply to prop up a stance.

and Denver keeps winning, despite an injured/underperforming 2nd option, a complete no-show from one of the starters this postseason,

Maybe because guys like MPJ and Gordon can step up and look like all-NBA players themselves as needed. This specific series has been a pretty stark contrast in performance game to game, but in that starkness is a trend that the series winner is probably going to be the one who had four strong cast performances. Edwards alone cannot carry his team through games like Game 4, and these gestures at Jamal — who performed well the past two games — and KCP indicates you know the same is true for Jokic.

I will say this for your point about Luka: he would be getting much more criticism if not for PJ, and excusable underperformance or not, that is goofy. But it is also annoyingly typical.

and on a team with worse depth.

Yet that depth is arguably the reason they won Game 4.

When Jokic is bad, like in games 1-2, I hold him accountable. When Luka is bad, which he has been basically all postseason, I hold him accountable. When they are good, I say so. It'd be nice to see more of that from others. Otherwise, it's the same dumb stuff I saw people wrongfully hold against LeBron in his prime.

Yeah I never really saw this as an exercise in “holding players accountable,” and I will reiterate I have especially little interest in doing so for players daring to play through injury.

[AEnigma]

Embiid as good as he is runs out of gas in second halves and can’t stay healthy in the postseason when it counts. I’ve seen him get the ball stripped many times from the blind side over the years. He only started to face up more cause Nurse probably drilled it into his head. He’s still not on Jokic’s tier, who can manage the entire game. Probably the only thing Embiid does better is hunt for and draw fouls. Defense of course, but you have to be healthy and available when the games actually matter. Jokic can face up too, with a sambor shuffle step back that’s just as unguardable as Embiids face up, he’s just better at being an offensive hub without needing to pull that rabbit out of his hat so often.

We’ll see how Embiid does next playoffs with a better Robin in Maxey and more team cohesion under Nurse.

My prediction is that he is once again playing limited. Sad, but that should be the assumption until he shows otherwise.

[AEnigma]

None of the top five SRS teams even made the Finals last year, and the Celtics were the only one to make the conference finals. Over the past 20 postseasons, the #1 SRS team has won 7 times (2005, 2007, 2008, 2014, 2015, 2017). It is a better marker than having the most wins (6 times) or having the MVP (4 times), but telling how all people seem to be able to do with the Celtics is blandly say they are 10 SRS and therefore by rule should be favoured over the western conference representative (again, this is a separate thought from them having the best odds because they comfortably the most likely team to reaching the Finals).

I think this is a fair point—i.e. that the #1 SRS team actually usually doesn’t win. But I’d note a couple things here:

1. The #1 SRS team usually doesn’t have anywhere near the 2024 Celtics’ SRS. And if you surveyed the teams that have had SRS that was as high or close to as high as the 2024 Celtics, you’ll find that most of them did actually win the title. For reference, every single team that had at least as high an SRS as the 2024 Celtics has won the title (and they all won it with ease too), and if we instead expand it out and look at 9+ SRS teams then it is 9 out of 14—and I note that one of the 5 that didn’t win lost to one of the 9 that did (i.e. the 1972 Bucks losing to the 1972 Lakers), and another one of the 5 had a major superstar out for the playoffs (i.e. Westbrook being injured in 2013). The point with the Celtics isn’t that they’ll win because they had the #1 SRS this season. It’s more about just how high their SRS was. It’s rarified air.

I also watched two 10 SRS teams lose less than a decade ago, and I would not say their issue was an inability to manage a 10.75 SRS in the regular season. The Spurs were a more serious contender the next year despite a lower SRS — in much the way the 2015/16 Warriors really have no advantage over the lower SRS 2018 Warriors. The 2005 Pistons were a better postseason team than the 2006/08 Pistons despite lesser SRS. The 1981-86 Bucks were never anywhere near as serious a contender as the Lakers despite having consistently better SRS. And so on.

We know what the Celtics are. They have been close enough to winning a title that a win this time around would not be surprising. But they are not actually that much better than they were in 2022 when it comes to postseason play. They do not have a coaching staff that adapts especially well, and their depth advantage is less important when starters play more. I am not going to call them the modern equivalent of George Karl’s Sonics… but the comparison is not as far off as it should be.

2. They don’t have the best odds just because they have an easy road to the Finals. As another poster pointed out, if you cross-reference their odds of making the Finals and their odds of winning the Finals, it indicates that the odds have the Celtics with a 65% chance of winning the Finals if they make it. Of course, a lot happens before that, so who knows what the Finals odds will actually ultimately be, but at this point I think the most likely outcome is that they’d be the betting favorites in the Finals against anyone (assuming of course that the Celtics make the Finals).

That is not what I am saying. I am saying I agree they are the most likely title winner, but only because of their path. And on that basis people can agree they are the most likely winner without thinking they are the best team.

[lessthanjake]

None of the top five SRS teams even made the Finals last year, and the Celtics were the only one to make the conference finals. Over the past 20 postseasons, the #1 SRS team has won 7 times (2005, 2007, 2008, 2014, 2015, 2017). It is a better marker than having the most wins (6 times) or having the MVP (4 times), but telling how all people seem to be able to do with the Celtics is blandly say they are 10 SRS and therefore by rule should be favoured over the western conference representative (again, this is a separate thought from them having the best odds because they comfortably the most likely team to reaching the Finals).

I think this is a fair point—i.e. that the #1 SRS team actually usually doesn’t win. But I’d note a couple things here:

1. The #1 SRS team usually doesn’t have anywhere near the 2024 Celtics’ SRS. And if you surveyed the teams that have had SRS that was as high or close to as high as the 2024 Celtics, you’ll find that most of them did actually win the title. For reference, every single team that had at least as high an SRS as the 2024 Celtics has won the title (and they all won it with ease too), and if we instead expand it out and look at 9+ SRS teams then it is 9 out of 14—and I note that one of the 5 that didn’t win lost to one of the 9 that did (i.e. the 1972 Bucks losing to the 1972 Lakers), and another one of the 5 had a major superstar out for the playoffs (i.e. Westbrook being injured in 2013). The point with the Celtics isn’t that they’ll win because they had the #1 SRS this season. It’s more about just how high their SRS was. It’s rarified air.

I also watched two 10 SRS teams lose less than a decade ago, and I would not say their issue was an inability to manage a 10.75 SRS in the regular season. The Spurs were a more serious contender the next year despite a lower SRS — in much the way the 2015/16 Warriors really have no advantage over the lower SRS 2018 Warriors. The 2005 Pistons were a better postseason team than the 2006/08 Pistons despite lesser SRS. The 1981-86 Bucks were never anywhere near as serious a contender as the Lakers despite having consistently better SRS. And so on.

We know what the Celtics are. They have been close enough to winning a title that a win this time around would not be surprising. But they are not actually that much better than they were in 2022 when it comes to postseason play. They do not have a coaching staff that adapts especially well, and their depth advantage is less important when starters play more. I am not going to call them the modern equivalent of George Karl’s Sonics… but the comparison is not as far off as it should be.

You’re largely just keying in on a couple of the minority of cases where teams with similar SRS didn’t win the title. Those aren’t the only examples, and, as I’ve noted, most examples ended in a title. I think our views should be indexed on all analogous info, not just a little bit of it.

As for knowing what the Celtics are, I don’t really think we do. Or at least I don’t think that past years are a particularly good guide. In past years, they did not have Jrue Holiday or Kristaps Porzingis. Those are both all-star-level guys that majorly upgraded the team! There’s a reason the team did a lot better in the regular season than they have in the past, and our baseline assumption shouldn’t be that those reasons won’t make them better as a playoff team too. (And I’ll note that this is why I’m definitely watching the Porzingis injury—if he’s out for the playoffs, then my view might be different, but I’m not expecting that he will be).

That said, I do agree with your point that “their depth advantage is less important when starters play more.” It’s a point I made in my prior post. That’s the main thing that makes me think they might be beatable. We shall see. I don’t think they’re an unbeatable team, but I think they are likely to win the title and that they should be favored against any team.

2. They don’t have the best odds just because they have an easy road to the Finals. As another poster pointed out, if you cross-reference their odds of making the Finals and their odds of winning the Finals, it indicates that the odds have the Celtics with a 65% chance of winning the Finals if they make it. Of course, a lot happens before that, so who knows what the Finals odds will actually ultimately be, but at this point I think the most likely outcome is that they’d be the betting favorites in the Finals against anyone (assuming of course that the Celtics make the Finals).

That is not what I am saying. I am saying I agree they are the most likely title winner, but only because of their path. And on that basis people can agree they are the most likely winner without thinking they are the best team.

Well, but the fact that they have 65% title odds *contingent on making the Finals*, is definitely suggestive of the consensus being that they are the best team. Of course, those odds can (and surely will) change to some degree, based on how the various teams play moving forward. So who knows what the actual title odds will be in the Finals. But I think the Celtics would likely be favored straight up against any Western Conference team at the moment. Of course, being favored doesn’t necessarily mean a team is actually better, so you’re certainly free to think they’re not the best team regardless.

[Ambrose]

Not really seeing the basis for that. I have generally been impressed by how he has been reasonably effective despite visible limitations (at least relative to 2021/22).


The other guy has higher standards by virtue of being a more established player and by virtue of being healthier.

And there is a point where playing through injury leaves you open to criticism — hello, Embiid! — but I similarly felt there was little cause to excessively rip on Giannis for last year’s Heat series. Being outplayed by Jimmy Butler is criticism in itself, just like being outplayed by Shai is criticism in itself, and Jokic generally being outplayed by Edwards and not clearly outplaying Lebron is criticism in itself.

Everyone wants to be ready with the hot takes, but if no one has a specific criticism of how Luka is playing, then no, he probably does not merit much of it. His defence has not been a particular liability outside of that first Clippers game. He is still creating good looks for his teammates, although I do feel a lot of that is a product of preexisting reputation rather than a reflection of what he can do right now. Ball control has been generally normal, although last game was rougher. So primary criticism I see is basically just shot-making, and… yeah, I am not really worried about healthy Luka’s ability to be an elite shot-maker. I do not see it as a real weakness teams can reliably exploit.

If the truth is that Luka just melts in the face of strong Canadian wing defenders, then that might be a long-term concern — but I will need a larger sample to call it a legitimate trend. If Luka goes on to become habitually injured in the postseason, then that is a long-term concern too. But as a relative one-off, where you are not articulating specific concerns in approach or ability, what is there to really say other than you hope he is in a better state next year.

The difference in standards is lesser than the difference in quality of play so far. One guy is the best player in the world and has arguably been the best player in the postseason. The other is top 3 player who wouldn't make all playoff 3rd team.

And one has been repeatedly called the greatest or second-great peak in league history, and the other probably is seen around… top 30? I know you do not see him that way, but that is pretty much the entire reason why there is backlash. It is not merely the standard of an MVP anymore, because a good chunk of the broader RealGM forum seems to have lost the ability to assess players past BPM. For an MVP-winning player with a top twenty peak, no, I have no strong criticisms of his play thus far. Same principles apply when looking at Shaq as a top ten peak versus “greatest peak ever”. Former, yeah, whatever, he had pnr weaknesses but still won a bunch anyway. Latter, we are suddenly not so blasé.

Additionally, not that it changes the point, but I would not call Luka a set top three player outside of how he settled in there because of (at this point expected) injured seasons from Embiid and Giannis.

List of specific concerns for you: settling for far too many jumpers, mid-range and post-game have tanked,

Which seems highly tied to injury.

too careless with the ball,

Pretty standard for him; that has been a long-held criticism and has not gone away.

repeated blow bys are constantly stressing the team's help defense (LAC G1, G4, last night off the top of my head),

Again, pretty standard issue, although in this case his defence has generally been better than expected and I would say it has been a more meaningful issue with the point of comparison here.

not putting nearly enough pressure on defenses himself,

Going back to injury.

way too many silly fouls,

Again an area where I feel he has done that less than he previously has, but “silly foul” is a pretty open standard.

and taking himself out of plays with whining that's over the top even for him.

Which has been by far the most common (and deserved) complaint.

If you want to handwave away shot-making from the league's top scorer, fine, but I'll hold him to a superstar standard, which for some reason only applies to Jokic, even though he's playing like one.

It was also held to Lebron, Embiid, and would have been held to Giannis had he been around to play. I suspect Steph too.

Not sure how you can say the bolded then critique Jokic, a better playoff performer,

I would not have committed to that assessment prior to last year.

with more past success,

Basically just last year.

more current success, and doing more against better competition, all by a wide margin.

Like I said, hard for me to get worked up about that when one person in the comparison is significantly hampered.

I won't even humor LeBron having an argument for outplaying Jokic, but as far as Ant goes, he's having the run of his career so far and all that's led to is a tied series. **** happens. No top player has been the best player in every series they've played,

I would say Edwards is having “the run of his career” because he is 22, but also, most top players also do not so reliably help the opposing superstar have “the run of his career”.

and he still may win that series regardless, by being the best player.

Or he may win because the team around him has provided more support than the team around Edwards.

For how much of "a liability" his defense has allegedly been, it's weird how both LA and Min are below their RS ORTG,

Do you feel it is Jokic’s spectacular defence that held Towns to 27 combined points over the past two games? Is he the reason McDaniels, Conley, and NAW are all shooting significantly worse than they did in the regular season? He strategically let Lebron and Davis do pretty much whatever they wanted because he knew that it would cause the rest of the Lakers to go cold?

Stop trying to “win” the discussion by just grabbing at any number that could abstractly support your position. Do you feel Jokic has been a good defender? Do you feel he has made life tougher for these offences? Do you feel they are not treating him as a target or otherwise that he is not justifying being treated like a target? The Wolves’ offence is still producing results better than Denver’s regular season defence, even with sub-par shooting performances from everyone other than Edwards.

Teams can blend in different ways. The 2003 Blazers had a +13 rOrtg against the Mavericks… and the 2003 Mavericks had a +12 oRtg against the Blazers. Does that mean we have no need to analyse their respective offences anymore? Should we conclude both teams mutually produced on one end and mutually collapsed on the other end? We should have no criticisms for Nash and Finley for performing poorly on offence for their standards because, well, still a +12 oRtg!

Teams do not scheme to hit x marker on offence or defence. “Yeah, guys, we lost, and they scored a bunch because of your weak rim protection — but those points do not matter because our net results on defence were better than regular season expectations.” I do not believe that you think success or failure should be measured that way, so please do not pretend you do simply to prop up a stance.

and Denver keeps winning, despite an injured/underperforming 2nd option, a complete no-show from one of the starters this postseason,

Maybe because guys like MPJ and Gordon can step up and look like all-NBA players themselves as needed. This specific series has been a pretty stark contrast in performance game to game, but in that starkness is a trend that the series winner is probably going to be the one who had four strong cast performances. Edwards alone cannot carry his team through games like Game 4, and these gestures at Jamal — who performed well the past two games — and KCP indicates you know the same is true for Jokic.

I will say this for your point about Luka: he would be getting much more criticism if not for PJ, and excusable underperformance or not, that is goofy. But it is also annoyingly typical.

and on a team with worse depth.

Yet that depth is arguably the reason they won Game 4.

When Jokic is bad, like in games 1-2, I hold him accountable. When Luka is bad, which he has been basically all postseason, I hold him accountable. When they are good, I say so. It'd be nice to see more of that from others. Otherwise, it's the same dumb stuff I saw people wrongfully hold against LeBron in his prime.

Yeah I never really saw this as an exercise in “holding players accountable,” and I will reiterate I have especially little interest in doing so for players daring to play through injury.

I think most of the top stuff is more or less fair. What it really boils down to is you appear to want to react to the people that call him a top 2 peak by pushing back equally in opposite, regardless of if they are the majority or not. I have especially little interest for evaluating that way. I'll judge players for myself.

As for the Den/MN stuff, I really don't buy pretty much any of it. There is some stark over willingness to give credit to the Denver cast at the expense of Jokic, that I simply don't understand, especially if people are watching these games. Is he the sole reason Towns and others have been bad? No, of course not. That's reductive to even ask, as is most of that paragraph. Has he played a role? Yeah, obviously, in the same ways he always does. He's not a rim protector, we know. He still provides value defensively; we know this too. No one is pretending he's an amazing defender. He's going to have ups and downs on that end, obviously. He's had bad and good games so far.

Jokic was the main reason they won game 4, and quite frankly I find it absurd to argue otherwise. He's the one that made Naz unplayable, he's the one who constantly took advantage of KAT overhelping with his playmaking, he's the one who abused Gobert down low, and he's the one who gave his guards constant separation on screens. The depth did extremely well because of the attention thrown his way, as always, and he was still the one who closed it out. I feel the bolded far more accurately describes the detractors, who for some reason can't help themselves, but that's my opinion.

[AEnigma]

I think this is a fair point—i.e. that the #1 SRS team actually usually doesn’t win. But I’d note a couple things here:

1. The #1 SRS team usually doesn’t have anywhere near the 2024 Celtics’ SRS. And if you surveyed the teams that have had SRS that was as high or close to as high as the 2024 Celtics, you’ll find that most of them did actually win the title. For reference, every single team that had at least as high an SRS as the 2024 Celtics has won the title (and they all won it with ease too), and if we instead expand it out and look at 9+ SRS teams then it is 9 out of 14—and I note that one of the 5 that didn’t win lost to one of the 9 that did (i.e. the 1972 Bucks losing to the 1972 Lakers), and another one of the 5 had a major superstar out for the playoffs (i.e. Westbrook being injured in 2013). The point with the Celtics isn’t that they’ll win because they had the #1 SRS this season. It’s more about just how high their SRS was. It’s rarified air.

I also watched two 10 SRS teams lose less than a decade ago, and I would not say their issue was an inability to manage a 10.75 SRS in the regular season. The Spurs were a more serious contender the next year despite a lower SRS — in much the way the 2015/16 Warriors really have no advantage over the lower SRS 2018 Warriors. The 2005 Pistons were a better postseason team than the 2006/08 Pistons despite lesser SRS. The 1981-86 Bucks were never anywhere near as serious a contender as the Lakers despite having consistently better SRS. And so on.

We know what the Celtics are. They have been close enough to winning a title that a win this time around would not be surprising. But they are not actually that much better than they were in 2022 when it comes to postseason play. They do not have a coaching staff that adapts especially well, and their depth advantage is less important when starters play more. I am not going to call them the modern equivalent of George Karl’s Sonics… but the comparison is not as far off as it should be.

You’re largely just keying in on a couple of the minority of cases where teams with similar SRS didn’t win the title. Those aren’t the only examples, and, as I’ve noted, most examples ended in a title. I think our views should be indexed on all analogous info, not just a little bit of it.

These are all minority cases because not many have that type of SRS. But here is an easy point of distinction: none of those 9-SRS teams have a lead player as uninspiring as Tatum. Maybe you could argue the 2013 Thunder, but I also did not think they were a Finals team that year. Next best team on the list is the 1986 Bucks, which kind-of speaks for itself. Even going by secondary players, I guess I can argue 2016 Aldridge against <pick a Celtic>, but that team also did not go anywhere.

If you are watching the Celtics and think they legitimately stack up with most of those title teams, agree to disagree but guess we will see in a month. If you are just going by the SRS, I do not see the point.

As for knowing what the Celtics are, I don’t really think we do. Or at least I don’t think that past years are a particularly good guide. In past years, they did not have Jrue Holiday or Kristaps Porzingis. Those are both all-star-level guys that majorly upgraded the team! There’s a reason the team did a lot better in the regular season than they have in the past, and our baseline assumption shouldn’t be that those reasons won’t make them better as a playoff team too. (And I’ll note that this is why I’m definitely watching the Porzingis injury—if he’s out for the playoffs, then my view might be different, but I’m not expecting that he will be).

I do not think either have played at an all-star level this year. Jrue was a fine move but realistically he has not been an improvement over 2022 Smart thus far. Porzingis is better, and I agree he is the x-factor in the sense his health is why I think the Celtics stand a ~45% chance in the Finals generally and more of a pick’em against the Thunder or Wolves specifically. However, as Ronnymac pointed out, that is not especially distinct from what Rob “pre-injury DPoY” provided in 2022, and I just am not that swayed by swapping out one impactful but fragile big for another, even if I agree Porzingis constitutes a net improvement now and long-term.

I am probably assessing this team as more of a 7.5-SRS one. Which is good and still qualifiedly the best in the league by that metric, but a far cry from what their actual 3+ SRS advantage would suggest. And given the trend in these types of SRS spikes, feels like a safe prediction for what they look like next year.

[lessthanjake]

And by the way, we’ve been over this Jokic ball-handling thing over and over. Jokic does not have a ball-handling issue. The man frequently runs the break. And I’ve pointed you to Ben Taylor talking about how Jokic’s ball-handling metrics are a complete outlier for centers, such that he looks like a guard in the data. Which is, of course, more valuable than a guard having that ball-handling skill, because ball-handling is significantly more valuable at a position that teams don’t normally have it. We’ve been over this before. It is a legitimate strength in Jokic’s game, which you have decided to latch onto as a perceived negative, likely because you’re struggling to come up with things to validate your preconceived views about Jokic. The fact that he had some turnovers in a couple games really doesn’t disprove this at all—obviously a couple games is basically meaningless for any broader argument about anything.

I don't really agree with the point that Jokic being an all time great ballhandler for a center is significantly more valuable due to the fact that other centers can't do it, excepting of course the fact that he's generating value by grabbing rebounds and lumbering up the floor on the break. Functionally Jokic isn't breaking down defenses from the perimeter and is wholly incapable of doing so against swarms anyway once he makes 1 or 2 dribbles because he often gets stonewalled at the nail and has to reset whenever he tries.

Basketball is getting closer and closer to positionless in many respects now anyway, and asking Jokic to handle the ball just because he's good for a center doesn't actually make sense or provide value the way you think it does vs the other all time offensive players he's compared to since it takes away from better ballhandlers. In special circumstances like pushing on the break I can see it, but that's not happening often.

Functionally I find Embiid a more useful ballhandler because he has a disgusting face up game that can be activated from the nail which makes it much harder for teams to swarm him the way they've done Jokic postups the last 2 series'.

A few notes on this:

1. The “excepting of course the fact that he's generating value by grabbing rebounds and lumbering up the floor on the break“ is a big caveat, because it’s very valuable to have your most prolific rebounder be able to also be the guy running the break. It allows the team to get into transition faster and to systematically push numbers in transition more. This is a big deal.

2. Jokic’s offensive game isn’t about breaking down defenses from the perimeter, but that’s just one way to break down a defense. Jokic has no trouble whatsoever collapsing the defense near the basket and creating advantages. He doesn’t need to work from the perimeter to do so. And, on this point, I’d note that Jokic’s back-to-the-basket game is helped a lot by him being a good ball-handler, because his secure ball-handling can give him a little more time on the ball before needing to make a move, which allows him to utilize his size and strength to get even better position and/or to give himself an extra moment to pick out a pass. He’s also just hard to strip when he does make his move, which increases his effectiveness against double teams. His great ball-handling skills are a big part of why his half-court game is so difficult to guard. So, again, ball-handling is a significant plus factor for him.

3. While breaking down defenses from the perimeter is not really Jokic’s game, he is quite willing to put the ball on the floor after getting the ball on the perimeter in a catch-and-shoot situation. And he’s effective when he does that at getting to the basket and/or into his floater. Indeed, Jokic made 5.4 drives a game this season (3rd most on the Nuggets, behind only the PGs), with a 67.5% FG% on those drives, with only a 4.8% TOV%. Last year, it was 4.3 drives a game, with 68.8% FG% and 8.0% TOV%. Jokic can absolutely put the ball on the floor and drive, and he’s an *extremely* effective scorer when he does it. He would lack this hyper-effective aspect of his game if he wasn’t such a good ball-handler. And, of course, this has knock-on effects elsewhere, because teams absolutely have to respect that aspect of his game (which, for instance, makes it riskier to sell out on closing out on his shot). Relatedly, Jokic’s ball-handling makes the dribble hand-off action harder to guard, because he’s a real threat to fake the hand-off and drive. Which is all to say that Jokic’s game isn’t mainly about ball-handling on the perimeter, but the fact that he can do it effectively is a notable piece of his offensive skill set and makes him and the actions he’s involved in a good deal harder to guard.

4. As for the comment that basketball is “getting closer and closer to positionless in many respects anyway,” I’d say we’re still pretty far from that really being the case. Teams still field big men (for various reasons, including that you risk getting killed on the boards if you don’t). And big men still generally don’t have good handles (once they do, that’s the point where things might genuinely be positionless). Jokic does. And, as discussed above, Jokic’s good ball-handling allows him to do things that bigs on other teams cannot do (run the break after a defensive rebound, drive in catch and shoot situations, drive off a fake dribble hand off, confidently dribble in traffic when in the post, etc.). It adds massively to his game. For instance, I promise you that the Timberwolves would absolutely love it if Gobert could handle the ball like Jokic!

[sp6r=underrated]

I think this is a fair point—i.e. that the #1 SRS team actually usually doesn’t win. But I’d note a couple things here:

1. The #1 SRS team usually doesn’t have anywhere near the 2024 Celtics’ SRS. And if you surveyed the teams that have had SRS that was as high or close to as high as the 2024 Celtics, you’ll find that most of them did actually win the title. For reference, every single team that had at least as high an SRS as the 2024 Celtics has won the title (and they all won it with ease too), and if we instead expand it out and look at 9+ SRS teams then it is 9 out of 14—and I note that one of the 5 that didn’t win lost to one of the 9 that did (i.e. the 1972 Bucks losing to the 1972 Lakers), and another one of the 5 had a major superstar out for the playoffs (i.e. Westbrook being injured in 2013). The point with the Celtics isn’t that they’ll win because they had the #1 SRS this season. It’s more about just how high their SRS was. It’s rarified air.

Yup, just to give details, since the merger 12 teams have had an SRS greater than 9. Descending order by SRS

96 Bulls: Won title (and the two after)
17 Warriors: Won Title (and 3 in 4, with the 4th being a g7 finals loss)
24 Celtics: TBD (winning playoff games by 11 points through 9 games!)
97 Bulls: Won Title
16 Warriors: Lost title (won in 15, 17 and 18)
16 Spurs: 2nd biggest disappointment in this list (loss to a 7 SRS club and outscored them in that series)
92 Bulls: Won title
15 Warriors: Won title
20 Bucks: Lost in ECSF (biggest bust by far)
08 Celtics: Won Title
13 Thunder: Lost in 2nd round (injury westbrook)
86 Celtics: Won title

7 of 11 won the title. And of those 7 they played a combined 3 elimination games which they won by an average of 22ppg.

The 4 losers:
16 Warriors: won titles in 3 of 4. Loss in G7 finals
2016 Spurs: 2 years removed from a title/3 years removed from a g7 Finals loss. Outscored OKC in series they lost
2013 Thunder: injury to 2nd best player
2020 Bucks: huge disappointment

Considering Boston a large favorite over the field is reasonable at this point. The majority of teams with their profile walked to a title and 3 of the 4 losers won titles in the nearby years.

telling how all people seem to be able to do with the Celtics is blandly say they are 10 SRS and therefore by rule should be favoured over the western conference representative

Team point differential is the best statistical tool for evaluating teams. And the data is clear they are the best team this year. And the data is clear they've made a huge leap from previous seasons.

The Spurs were a more serious contender the next year despite a lower SRS

This is bizarre claim.

These are all minority cases because not many have that type of SRS. But here is an easy point of distinction: none of those 9-SRS teams have a lead player as uninspiring as Tatum. Maybe you could argue the 2013 Thunder, but I also did not think they were a Finals team that year. Next best team on the list is the 1986 Bucks, which kind-of speaks for itself. Even going by secondary players, I guess I can argue 2016 Aldridge against <pick a Celtic>, but that team also did not go anywhere.

If you are watching the Celtics and think they legitimately stack up with most of those title teams, agree to disagree but guess we will see in a month. If you are just going by the SRS, I do not see the point.

Your post above indicates my point below. Celtics skepticism is entirely due to them not fitting the profile of an ATG Club (GOAT or best player in the league). My guess is we will get some Tatum revisionism from some and others will downgrade this club unless they win a couple more titles.

I don't think the 2024 Celtics get quite the credit they deserved because their profile doesn't fit the profile of an ATG team. Most ATG NBA teams have a player who is considered best in the NBA by at least many fans. Tatum is great but essentially no one believes he is the best NBA player

And given the trend in these types of SRS spikes, feels like a safe prediction for what they look like next year.

It is a safe pick because almost every team regressed from how the 2024 Celtics played. To play at this level you need complete lock-in to team play from every player, perfect health. You basically need everything to go right.

If they regress in 2025, which I think they will, will not reflect on 2024. If they keep this up they're a GOAT caliber squad that will deserve to have their name listed next to the other GOAT squads.

[Special_Puppy]

I think this is a fair point—i.e. that the #1 SRS team actually usually doesn’t win. But I’d note a couple things here:

1. The #1 SRS team usually doesn’t have anywhere near the 2024 Celtics’ SRS. And if you surveyed the teams that have had SRS that was as high or close to as high as the 2024 Celtics, you’ll find that most of them did actually win the title. For reference, every single team that had at least as high an SRS as the 2024 Celtics has won the title (and they all won it with ease too), and if we instead expand it out and look at 9+ SRS teams then it is 9 out of 14—and I note that one of the 5 that didn’t win lost to one of the 9 that did (i.e. the 1972 Bucks losing to the 1972 Lakers), and another one of the 5 had a major superstar out for the playoffs (i.e. Westbrook being injured in 2013). The point with the Celtics isn’t that they’ll win because they had the #1 SRS this season. It’s more about just how high their SRS was. It’s rarified air.

Yup, just to give details, since the merger 12 teams have had an SRS greater than 9. Descending order by SRS

96 Bulls: Won title (and the two after)
17 Warriors: Won Title (and 3 in 4, with the 4th being a g7 finals loss)
24 Celtics: TBD (winning playoff games by 11 points through 9 games!)
97 Bulls: Won Title
16 Warriors: Lost title (won in 15, 17 and 18)
16 Spurs: 2nd biggest disappointment in this list (loss to a 7 SRS club and outscored them in that series)
92 Bulls: Won title
15 Warriors: Won title
20 Bucks: Lost in ECSF (biggest bust by far)
08 Celtics: Won Title
13 Thunder: Lost in 2nd round (injury westbrook)
86 Celtics: Won title

7 of 11 won the title. And of those 7 they played a combined 3 elimination games which they won by an average of 22ppg.

The 4 losers:
16 Warriors: won titles in 3 of 4. Loss in G7 finals
2016 Spurs: 2 years removed from a title/3 years removed from a g7 Finals loss. Outscored OKC in series they lost
2013 Thunder: injury to 2nd best player
2020 Bucks: huge disappointment

Considering Boston a large favorite over the field is reasonable at this point. The majority of teams with their profile walked to a title and 3 of the 4 losers won titles in the nearby years.

What's the explanation for the 2020 Bucks crashed out in the second round to a not particularly talented Heat team?

[sp6r=underrated]

I think this is a fair point—i.e. that the #1 SRS team actually usually doesn’t win. But I’d note a couple things here:

1. The #1 SRS team usually doesn’t have anywhere near the 2024 Celtics’ SRS. And if you surveyed the teams that have had SRS that was as high or close to as high as the 2024 Celtics, you’ll find that most of them did actually win the title. For reference, every single team that had at least as high an SRS as the 2024 Celtics has won the title (and they all won it with ease too), and if we instead expand it out and look at 9+ SRS teams then it is 9 out of 14—and I note that one of the 5 that didn’t win lost to one of the 9 that did (i.e. the 1972 Bucks losing to the 1972 Lakers), and another one of the 5 had a major superstar out for the playoffs (i.e. Westbrook being injured in 2013). The point with the Celtics isn’t that they’ll win because they had the #1 SRS this season. It’s more about just how high their SRS was. It’s rarified air.

Yup, just to give details, since the merger 12 teams have had an SRS greater than 9. Descending order by SRS

96 Bulls: Won title (and the two after)
17 Warriors: Won Title (and 3 in 4, with the 4th being a g7 finals loss)
24 Celtics: TBD (winning playoff games by 11 points through 9 games!)
97 Bulls: Won Title
16 Warriors: Lost title (won in 15, 17 and 18)
16 Spurs: 2nd biggest disappointment in this list (loss to a 7 SRS club and outscored them in that series)
92 Bulls: Won title
15 Warriors: Won title
20 Bucks: Lost in ECSF (biggest bust by far)
08 Celtics: Won Title
13 Thunder: Lost in 2nd round (injury westbrook)
86 Celtics: Won title

7 of 11 won the title. And of those 7 they played a combined 3 elimination games which they won by an average of 22ppg.

The 4 losers:
16 Warriors: won titles in 3 of 4. Loss in G7 finals
2016 Spurs: 2 years removed from a title/3 years removed from a g7 Finals loss. Outscored OKC in series they lost
2013 Thunder: injury to 2nd best player
2020 Bucks: huge disappointment

Considering Boston a large favorite over the field is reasonable at this point. The majority of teams with their profile walked to a title and 3 of the 4 losers won titles in the nearby years.

What's the explanation for the 2020 Bucks crashed out in the first round to a not particularly talented Heat team?

My father was dying that year and I couldn't see him due to covid. I paid almost no attention to that playoff. Considering they won the title the year after and loss in 6 to the champs in the ECF, I'm inclined to write it off.

[AEnigma]

Very funny how I can say people are analysing this team by just pointing at a number… and the response is to once again point at the number.

[eminence]

[What's the explanation for the 2020 Bucks crashed out in the second round to a not particularly talented Heat team?

Giannis injury contributed, though they were already looking poor before the major injury.

[sp6r=underrated]

Very funny how I can say people are analysing this team by just pointing at a number… and the response is to once again point at the number.

I prefer data over bull but then again you're the guy who thinks refs fix games but still manages to get emotionally invested in the outcome of fixed games.

Why do you watch NBA games if you think ref fixing is an active problem?

What? Why do you if you are going to take this puritan approach that entertainment only justifies itself by being wholly neutral and decided exclusively by the quality of those participating in it. Hell, why consume any media. “You know, I was reading this book the other day, and it felt awfully scripted.”

[Heej]

Embiid as good as he is runs out of gas in second halves and can’t stay healthy in the postseason when it counts. I’ve seen him get the ball stripped many times from the blind side over the years. He only started to face up more cause Nurse probably drilled it into his head. He’s still not on Jokic’s tier, who can manage the entire game. Probably the only thing Embiid does better is hunt for and draw fouls. Defense of course, but you have to be healthy and available when the games actually matter. Jokic can face up too, with a sambor shuffle step back that’s just as unguardable as Embiids face up, he’s just better at being an offensive hub without needing to pull that rabbit out of his hat so often.

We’ll see how Embiid does next playoffs with a better Robin in Maxey and more team cohesion under Nurse.

I rarely see Jokic face up tbh, especially compared to Embiid. He usually just dribbles into post ups and DHOs. Even his sombor shuffle comes out of post fades. Embiid has a way better jab step game and a better pull up jumper. It's just not Joker's game. Embiid is a lot better at drawing fouls off the dribble and on his pump fake and drives.

I don't think his conditioning is as good as Jokic's, nor is his health. But as a pure functional ballhandler I think Embiid is better in the halfcourt but Jokic is more likely to take it coast to coast. I'm assuming that has more to do with stamina issues than skill issues but still that's not Embiid's game either. I just don't think claiming Joker is some all time great ballhandler for a center really does anything for you functionally in an offense with the way he plays.

[AEnigma]

Very funny how I can say people are analysing this team by just pointing at a number… and the response is to once again point at the number.

I prefer data over bull but then again you're the guy who thinks refs fix games but still manages to get emotionally invested in the outcome of fixed games.

Why do you watch NBA games if you think ref fixing is an active problem?

What? Why do you if you are going to take this puritan approach that entertainment only justifies itself by being wholly neutral and decided exclusively by the quality of those participating in it. Hell, why consume any media. “You know, I was reading this book the other day, and it felt awfully scripted.”

Even funnier that you ask me why I watch while basically ignoring anything you see from how the teams play. Guess we really have our wires crossed, huh. You would rather treat the game itself as “bull”, and I somehow manage to not be totally alienated by the idea that arbitrary decision-makers could have undue influence on a result.

Good to have my question answered though. All the crying over the tragic referee slander is from someone indifferent to looking at how teams play. Makes sense.

[Heej]

And by the way, we’ve been over this Jokic ball-handling thing over and over. Jokic does not have a ball-handling issue. The man frequently runs the break. And I’ve pointed you to Ben Taylor talking about how Jokic’s ball-handling metrics are a complete outlier for centers, such that he looks like a guard in the data. Which is, of course, more valuable than a guard having that ball-handling skill, because ball-handling is significantly more valuable at a position that teams don’t normally have it. We’ve been over this before. It is a legitimate strength in Jokic’s game, which you have decided to latch onto as a perceived negative, likely because you’re struggling to come up with things to validate your preconceived views about Jokic. The fact that he had some turnovers in a couple games really doesn’t disprove this at all—obviously a couple games is basically meaningless for any broader argument about anything.

I don't really agree with the point that Jokic being an all time great ballhandler for a center is significantly more valuable due to the fact that other centers can't do it, excepting of course the fact that he's generating value by grabbing rebounds and lumbering up the floor on the break. Functionally Jokic isn't breaking down defenses from the perimeter and is wholly incapable of doing so against swarms anyway once he makes 1 or 2 dribbles because he often gets stonewalled at the nail and has to reset whenever he tries.

Basketball is getting closer and closer to positionless in many respects now anyway, and asking Jokic to handle the ball just because he's good for a center doesn't actually make sense or provide value the way you think it does vs the other all time offensive players he's compared to since it takes away from better ballhandlers. In special circumstances like pushing on the break I can see it, but that's not happening often.

Functionally I find Embiid a more useful ballhandler because he has a disgusting face up game that can be activated from the nail which makes it much harder for teams to swarm him the way they've done Jokic postups the last 2 series'.

A few notes on this:

1. The “excepting of course the fact that he's generating value by grabbing rebounds and lumbering up the floor on the break“ is a big caveat, because it’s very valuable to have your most prolific rebounder be able to also be the guy running the break. It allows the team to get into transition faster and to systematically push numbers in transition more. This is a big deal.

2. Jokic’s offensive game isn’t about breaking down defenses from the perimeter, but that’s just one way to break down a defense. Jokic has no trouble whatsoever collapsing the defense near the basket and creating advantages. He doesn’t need to work from the perimeter to do so. And, on this point, I’d note that Jokic’s back-to-the-basket game is helped a lot by him being a good ball-handler, because his secure ball-handling can give him a little more time on the ball before needing to make a move, which allows him to utilize his size and strength to get even better position and/or to give himself an extra moment to pick out a pass. He’s also just hard to strip when he does make his move, which increases his effectiveness against double teams. His great ball-handling skills are a big part of why his half-court game is so difficult to guard. So, again, ball-handling is a significant plus factor for him.

3. While breaking down defenses from the perimeter is not really Jokic’s game, he is quite willing to put the ball on the floor after getting the ball on the perimeter in a catch-and-shoot situation. And he’s effective when he does that at getting to the basket and/or into his floater. Indeed, Jokic made 5.4 drives a game this season (3rd most on the Nuggets, behind only the PGs), with a 67.5% FG% on those drives, with only a 4.8% TOV%. Last year, it was 4.3 drives a game, with 68.8% FG% and 8.0% TOV%. Jokic can absolutely put the ball on the floor and drive, and he’s an *extremely* effective scorer when he does it. He would lack this hyper-effective aspect of his game if he wasn’t such a good ball-handler. And, of course, this has knock-on effects elsewhere, because teams absolutely have to respect that aspect of his game (which, for instance, makes it riskier to sell out on closing out on his shot). Relatedly, Jokic’s ball-handling makes the dribble hand-off action harder to guard, because he’s a real threat to fake the hand-off and drive. Which is all to say that Jokic’s game isn’t mainly about ball-handling on the perimeter, but the fact that he can do it effectively is a notable piece of his offensive skill set and makes him and the actions he’s involved in a good deal harder to guard.

4. As for the comment that basketball is “getting closer and closer to positionless in many respects anyway,” I’d say we’re still pretty far from that really being the case. Teams still field big men (for various reasons, including that you risk getting killed on the boards if you don’t). And big men still generally don’t have good handles (once they do, that’s the point where things might genuinely be positionless). Jokic does. And, as discussed above, Jokic’s good ball-handling allows him to do things that bigs on other teams cannot do (run the break after a defensive rebound, drive in catch and shoot situations, drive off a fake dribble hand off, confidently dribble in traffic when in the post, etc.). It adds massively to his game. For instance, I promise you that the Timberwolves would absolutely love it if Gobert could handle the ball like Jokic!

1. Not a big deal often enough unfortunately. Jokic vacuums 15 boards and pushes the break on 5 of them at most maybe? It's a plus, but hardly a gamebreaker. Kudos to Joker though it's awesome to see.

2. Jokic's ballhandling somewhat helps him in post ups but it's not functionally that much better than other all time great centers. He's tougher to double because he has better processing speed, not because he's a better ballhandler. It's just a post up my dude it's really not that deep lmao.

3. I appreciate how these aspects of his game are helped by his above average ballhandling, but these things honestly stand out more in the regular season vs the postseason where teams are actively aware of what Jokic's tendencies are attacking closeouts. You're not generating consistent offense putting the ball in his hands out there and asking him to make a play (even on keeper plays) which is precisely what Ohayo harps on regarding his sub-par ballhandling relative to other offensive greats.

4. Again, I agree with you that Jokic is one of the best ballhandlers ever for his size and that it is a plus. But when comparing him to other offensive hubs, it's absolutely a fair criticism to say it holds him back from consistently creating and closing games the way other perimeter oriented players can. And that's ok. He does other things extremely well.

[lessthanjake]

I think this is a fair point—i.e. that the #1 SRS team actually usually doesn’t win. But I’d note a couple things here:

1. The #1 SRS team usually doesn’t have anywhere near the 2024 Celtics’ SRS. And if you surveyed the teams that have had SRS that was as high or close to as high as the 2024 Celtics, you’ll find that most of them did actually win the title. For reference, every single team that had at least as high an SRS as the 2024 Celtics has won the title (and they all won it with ease too), and if we instead expand it out and look at 9+ SRS teams then it is 9 out of 14—and I note that one of the 5 that didn’t win lost to one of the 9 that did (i.e. the 1972 Bucks losing to the 1972 Lakers), and another one of the 5 had a major superstar out for the playoffs (i.e. Westbrook being injured in 2013). The point with the Celtics isn’t that they’ll win because they had the #1 SRS this season. It’s more about just how high their SRS was. It’s rarified air.

Yup, just to give details, since the merger 12 teams have had an SRS greater than 9. Descending order by SRS

96 Bulls: Won title (and the two after)
17 Warriors: Won Title (and 3 in 4, with the 4th being a g7 finals loss)
24 Celtics: TBD (winning playoff games by 11 points through 9 games!)
97 Bulls: Won Title
16 Warriors: Lost title (won in 15, 17 and 18)
16 Spurs: 2nd biggest disappointment in this list (loss to a 7 SRS club and outscored them in that series)
92 Bulls: Won title
15 Warriors: Won title
20 Bucks: Lost in ECSF (biggest bust by far)
08 Celtics: Won Title
13 Thunder: Lost in 2nd round (injury westbrook)
86 Celtics: Won title

7 of 11 won the title. And of those 7 they played a combined 3 elimination games which they won by an average of 22ppg.

The 4 losers:
16 Warriors: won titles in 3 of 4. Loss in G7 finals
2016 Spurs: 2 years removed from a title/3 years removed from a g7 Finals loss. Outscored OKC in series they lost
2013 Thunder: injury to 2nd best player
2020 Bucks: huge disappointment

Considering Boston a large favorite over the field is reasonable at this point. The majority of teams with their profile walked to a title and 3 of the 4 losers won titles in the nearby years.

Great info! I’d add that even pre-merger there were just three teams with a 9+ SRS. Those were the 1971 Bucks, 1972 Bucks, and 1972 Lakers. The 1971 Bucks and 1972 Lakers won the title. And the 1972 Bucks didn’t win the title, because they lost to the 1972 Lakers. The 1971 Bucks lost only 2 games in the playoffs, and the 1972 Lakers lost only 3 games in the playoffs (with 2 of those losses being to the 1972 Bucks).

The other thing I’d add is that there’s some pretty important context with the 2020 Bucks—which is that that 9+ SRS was almost entirely racked up before there was a 5-month hiatus. As you point out, playing at that sort of level requires total lock-in from the team, and we’d expect teams to regress in a subsequent season. In that season, the hiatus from basketball was about as long as a normal offseason, so we’d similarly generally expect that they would regress from that incredibly high level they’d been at. And, indeed, we did see them only have a 2.15 SRS in the bubble before the playoffs (5.53 SRS in the games Giannis played).