2023-24 NBA Season Discussion

[Colbinii]

The really scary thing is it seems like Ant is still nowhere close to his full potential at this point

He can wait until next year.

Next week

[lessthanjake]

Jokic had a very good series. He averaged 29/11/8 on +4.3% rTS, without a lot of turnovers. And for all the talk of his defense not holding up, the Timberwolves ultimately were held below their regular season offensive rating (after having barreled way past that in the first round, I might add). FWIW, Jokic also had a +20.8 on-off in the playoffs, with it being even higher in this series. Not really meaningful due to small sample size, but notable since small-sample playoff on-off has been a knock used against him before, and that didn’t show up here at all.

Ultimately, it wasn’t quite enough against an amazing defense that is well built to make things as difficult as possible for him. If his teammates had played okay in the series (particularly Murray and MPJ—who both had sub-50% TS%) then I think they win the series. But, of course, the supporting cast playing badly was at least in part caused by the Timberwolves themselves, so it’s not exactly fair to the Timberwolves to say that the Nuggets would’ve won if only those other Nuggets played okay. And of course one could always try to say that Jokic should’ve gotten those guys better looks (though I think that’s more of a secondary thing here—there was a lot of missing of open shots or shots these guys normally make at a much higher clip). The Nuggets lacking virtually any depth on their bench was also a problem, and one that was completely foreseeable. I don’t think any bench player for the Nuggets would’ve been in the rotation for the Timberwolves. And I think Jokic would’ve had more energy at the end of Game 7 and settled for fewer threes in the game if he didn’t have to play like the entire game. They just didn’t have the ability to take Jokic out because they couldn’t trust what would happen if they did. This was a failure of the front office, since everyone knew their bench would be perilously thin from the beginning of the season and they were just cheap and unwilling to try to improve it.

I do think that this series is a bit of a stark counterpoint to all the people who were saying that the Nuggets supporting cast was really great. It’s not, and it never was. The Nuggets were pretty lucky last year to get a relatively easy playoff run, and to have that coincide with Murray playing above his normal level in the playoffs. They are not the quality of roster you’d expect to consistently win titles. They just don’t have that kind of talent. The supporting cast around Jokic has a well-fitting starting lineup that is nevertheless devoid of any other real star who can consistently cause major problems for really good playoff defenses (or, alternatively, perhaps a truly game-changing defensive player of some sort), and they also have a genuinely weak bench. We can see from NBA history that it is *possible* to win a title with a superstar and merely a well-fitting starting lineup, but it is not at all likely (even for the best superstars we’ve seen) and gets less likely the less depth the team has (and note: the Nuggets had a bit more depth last year, albeit still not a deep team by any stretch of the imagination).

All that said, of course with a series this close, Jokic himself could’ve played *even better* such that the Nuggets could’ve won. He played great in the series, but it could’ve been even better. There’s always some amount of criticism lobbed at players like this in such situations, but I think it’s largely unfair. When people make these sorts of criticisms, the way they talk about it is as if the best players in league history never had disappointments where they could’ve perhaps played better to avoid the disappointment (people often make comments like “If he were really the best then this wouldn’t have happened”), but that’s really not the case. People often point to Jordan, because he won 6 titles in such a short timespan. But even with Jordan, he had peak years where his team lost to the Pistons and he played well but could’ve been even better (as well as another example in 1995, though that’s not exactly peak IMO). Peak LeBron had some serious disappointments where he could’ve been better too (2010 and in particular 2011 being good examples). And, of course, as we go further down the line of all-time players, we’ll tend to only see more and more of that. I think the reality is that it is a 5-on-5 game, and every player is at least somewhat fallible, even the best players ever at the peaks of the powers. Obviously it’s better for a player’s resume if they win everything and never have disappointments where they could’ve stepped up even more, but it just doesn’t really happen (perhaps leaving aside Russell), and I think people react far too harshly to the disappointments, forgetting that all the same criticisms were lobbed at essentially all the sport’s greatest players.

The above is aimed at assessments and criticisms of Jokic’s individual quality as a player. In terms of all-time greatness though, I think sheer title wins matter. And Jokic isn’t old but he’s not young either. So every year he doesn’t win the title will meaningfully lower the ceiling of how high he can get in all-time rankings. I don’t actually expect Jokic to end up *super* high in all-time rankings (i.e. I don’t think he can or will challenge for all-time GOAT). I’m very keen on him as a peak player, but he got started as a truly elite player fairly late, and I don’t expect him to play until a super late age (he just doesn’t seem to be the type of person to want to, though I could definitely be wrong). He also isn’t on a team that is really talented enough to consistently win titles (and they don’t have a lot of contractual flexibility to change that), nor do I think he will change teams to try to optimize his ring count. So I think there’s a real limit to how high he can end up all-time, even though I am about as high as anyone on his peak quality as a player.

Anyways, moving forward, I’m rooting for the Timberwolves, but I’m expecting a Celtics title win (and would’ve expected that regardless of how any of the non-Celtic second-round series went).

[OhayoKD]

Jokic had a very good series. He averaged 29/11/8 on +4.3% rTS, without a lot of turnovers.

This playoff series was a good lesson in assist totals not representing the value of creation, especially for those who spend less time of per possession on the ball because they are bad at handling the ball relative to most lead playmakers.

I do think that this series is a bit of a stark counterpoint to all the people who were saying that the Nuggets supporting cast was really great. It’s not, and it never was.

yeah they are probably not good enough to look like a conference finalist team without him.

[lessthanjake]

Jokic had a very good series. He averaged 29/11/8 on +4.3% rTS, without a lot of turnovers.

This playoff series was a good lesson in assist totals not representing the value of creation, especially for those who spend less time of per possession on the ball because they are bad at handling the ball relative to most lead playmakers.

I think that’s way overly simplistic, and that you’re wanting to map on your own preconceived notions as an explanation.

To the extent there’s an explanation for things that relates to a weakness of Jokic, I’d put it more like this:

The Timberwolves have a rather unique ability to put a really big body on Jokic (KAT, and to a lesser extent Naz Reid), while still having an elite roaming rim protector. When you combine this with athletic and long wing defenders with snappy rotations, it can get a bit hard to create an advantage on post-ups and elbow touches. The big body on Jokic can actually prevent him from always getting really deep position. And if he doesn’t have deep position, then an instant double team doesn’t have to come from that far away, so the rotating defenders don’t have to cover as much distance. When you combine that with the length and athleticism of the rotating defenders and snappy rotations, things can be snuffed out. Usually, though, the counter to a big body pushing Jokic out a bit would just be to exploit that with cutters attacking a now-unprotected rim—with Jokic having a GOAT-like ability to hit cutters. But the Timberwolves are able to put a big body on Jokic *and* have the DPOY guarding the rim, so that isn’t so great either. Other teams could try some variant of this (albeit not with the DPOY), but for virtually any other team in the NBA, having a big enough body to put on Jokic *and* a great rim protector would result in awful court spacing, and it wouldn’t be worth it overall. But KAT (and Reid) space the floor so the Wolves avoid that. And even if you could put two big bodies on the court without sacrificing too much court spacing, most teams don’t have the wing defenders and defensive discipline to make it all work anyways.

Of course, there are ways that Jokic’s team could be better such that this could be broken more. For instance, with snappier passing, the Nuggets could get more open shots off of the above-described actions. But they have guys like MPJ that just aren’t really up to par in that regard, resulting in more snuffed out sequences than there need to be. Meanwhile, in theory Gobert helping on a cut could be exploited, but he typically helps off of Gordon, who is not a good shooter, so the options to exploit there are lessened (though, across the series, Gordon was able to feast a good bit off easy buckets from this), and the Nuggets didn’t have anyone off the bench that could reliably stretch the floor there instead. Of course, it also could be dealt with by guys like MPJ and Murray just shooting better than they did—these guys were still getting daylight but largely just didn’t hit their shots. If they had, then the Nuggets would’ve won the series.

All of this is obviously a blueprint of some sort to limit Jokic’s team. But it’s very contingent on having a really specific and difficult to build roster, and also on having Jokic’s 2nd and 3rd scoring options being really cold. It’s also contingent on Jokic not really having a reliable second option that can cause some scrambling of his own that Jokic could exploit (it’s *very* hard for a defense in rotation to react to another guy they want to double getting the ball), or a second option that could actually go at a guy like Gobert with any reasonable efficiency when that’s what the defense is trying to give (or a second option that could get a pass from Jokic on a cut when Jokic is doubled and then draw Gobert in and get the pass or alley-oop to a third guy, such as Gordon). It’s also contingent on the Nuggets not really having the ability to fully stretch the floor around Jokic—since that would draw Gobert away and open things up a ton. They didn’t really have any of that, and changing any of those things could’ve (and very likely would’ve) flipped things on their head a lot.

Crucially, though, I’m not really sure how this is particularly distinct from players who playmake more off the dribble than Jokic. With similarly well-suited personnel, teams can do something that is conceptually pretty similar against that. Which is basically to have great perimeter defenders and build a wall such that the defense is rarely having to totally collapse, and then have snappy and fast rotations to shooters with athletic defenders and hope that guys miss or hesitate when they have only a bit of daylight. It’s really not a lot different. Either way, the idea is basically to just get the help over high enough up the court that defenders recovering aren’t super far from the shooters and the defense can recover. But as with the scheme on Jokic, you still really need the offense to have guys be cold, to not have ideal court spacing, and/or to not have another star guy that can really punish a defense that’s in rotation. And as with the scheme on Jokic, you still need specific defensive personnel to pull it off, because it gets harder to do it if there’s an easy matchup.

Bottom line is I think the lesson is that it’s hard to create consistent and *effective* advantages against an amazing defense when you don’t have another major star player and your other big scoring options have gone cold. An amazing defense can usually double you aggressively before you can completely collapse them, and then recover quickly enough that the sequence can become relatively harmless if your guys are cold and there’s not another really dangerous guy who can attack the rotation really effectively. This isn’t just true of scheming for Jokic, though. It’s just generally the case, and is why supporting casts matter. Ultimately, there’s a reason why, out of the top 3 MVP vote-getters this year, the one who has played the least well in the playoffs is the one still alive in the playoffs—and it’s largely because its the one who has gotten more from his team (with other guys who decidedly have *not* been cold, as well as another star guy that can also create advantages as well as exploit a rotating defense).

[rk2023]

In the last 30 years, the pacers have made the ECF in every year that ends in a 4
1994, 2004, 2014, and now 2024

[rk2023]

The really scary thing is it seems like Ant is still nowhere close to his full potential at this point

His age 25 season (Shai’s right now for example) is in 3 years. I am highly intrigued as to how much he can add to his game and improve upon by then. The Wolves will be cash-strapped for the next few years, so being able to maximize their title windows hinges on Ant continuing to be that guy in the playoffs

[falcolombardi]

A ring for any of the 4 teams left would lead to very spicy narrative conclusions which makes it interesting to see how the basketball landscape will readjust their talking points

Edwards will likely reap the lion (wolf?) Share of a minny ring, and likely get propelled alongsidd his admittedly charismatic personality into top player in the league discussions i dont think he is ready for, (i see him as a low end to borderline top 10 guy in a sort of 8-12 range right now), gobert and kat and conley will get some nice crumbs too (conley distant shot at hof?, mayyyybeeee?) Would be nice for kat and gobert to change their punching bag status a bit

Luka and kyrie winning would be huge for both, kyrie winning a second "robin" ring without the goat playoff performer would do wonders for his eventual hof case. He has the aesthetics of a all time skilled scorer already and would do a lot against his locker room bomb issues.
Luka tho,would be inmediately propelled (recency bias for the win) into current top 1 talk by winning a unexpected ring as a 4th seed after historic box score seasons.

Indiana unlikely victory would be an absolute shock to everyone, specially after post injury haliburton got dismissed as a (40 game long apparently) linsanity run for some reason. I honestly dont know how the media would even begin to talk about a guy 95+% of casual fans dont know exists. Shai winning would have been the closest simile but a 1st seed, 2nd in mvp and a great series vs dallas got him at least lightly, into mainstream consciousness. Haliburton doesnt even have that slight recognition right now

Boston winning would be interesting because the debate about tatum would intensify even more, but a ring would still get him serious respect he doesnt really get right now

[parsnips33]

Indy winning would be funny what would people even talk about

[Ambrose]

Indy winning would be funny what would people even talk about

Imagine a Pacers/Wolves finals with the Pacers winning.

It'd be wild.

[parsnips33]

Indy winning would be funny what would people even talk about

Imagine a Pacers/Wolves finals with the Pacers winning.

It'd be wild.

We need to start comparing Tyrese with Lebron now that so we'll have lots to argue about come Finals time

[rk2023]

Regarding the discussion about basketball being solved or algorithmic.

I agree in the latter, from the angle of how algorithmic is defined “expressed as or using an algorithm or computational procedure”. Essentially, a process or set of rules to be followed. From the objective of maximizing / optimization of offense (which appears to be the statistical case now more than ever), set rules are put in place in order to execute the right steps in a chain towards the end goal of maximizing a possession.

Where the divergence of that and basketball being “solved” lies, is two considerations

(1) These players aren’t super-computers now, and hindsight is often 20/20.

(2) The premises together also, imo, don’t fully consider the fact that defenses’ goal is the exact opposite: to minimize the points conceded in a possession. In contrast to a super-computer / artificial intelligence lens of instantly countering a block in the path - adjustments take a lot more of human intel and a reaction carried out over time.

Based off this, I don’t think basketball can ever be “solved”, but I think some teams and players can come closer to doing it than others (in a top-down, all hands on deck fashion). However, I do think the game can be more algorithmic and strategic than ever - and continue to do so over time. JMO

[OhayoKD]

Jokic had a very good series. He averaged 29/11/8 on +4.3% rTS, without a lot of turnovers.

This playoff series was a good lesson in assist totals not representing the value of creation, especially for those who spend less time of per possession on the ball because they are bad at handling the ball relative to most lead playmakers.

I think that’s way overly simplistic, and that you’re wanting to map on your own preconceived notions as an explanation.

Notions that lineup with winning I think. Simplicity is better than complexity when they share the same explanatory capacity.

To the extent there’s an explanation for things that relates to a weakness of Jokic, I’d put it more like this:

The Timberwolves have a rather unique ability to put a really big body on Jokic (KAT, and to a lesser extent Naz Reid), while still having an elite roaming rim protector. When you combine this with athletic and long wing defenders with snappy rotations, it can get a bit hard to create an advantage on post-ups and elbow touches. The big body on Jokic can actually prevent him from always getting really deep position. And if he doesn’t have deep position, then an instant double team doesn’t have to come from that far away, so the rotating defenders don’t have to cover as much distance. When you combine that with the length and athleticism of the rotating defenders and snappy rotations, things can be snuffed out. Usually, though, the counter to a big body pushing Jokic out a bit would just be to exploit that with cutters attacking a now-unprotected rim—with Jokic having a GOAT-like ability to hit cutters. But the Timberwolves are able to put a big body on Jokic *and* have the DPOY guarding the rim, so that isn’t so great either. Other teams could try some variant of this (albeit not with the DPOY), but for virtually any other team in the NBA, having a big enough body to put on Jokic *and* a great rim protector would result in awful court spacing, and it wouldn’t be worth it overall. But KAT (and Reid) space the floor so the Wolves avoid that. And even if you could put two big bodies on the court without sacrificing too much court spacing, most teams don’t have the wing defenders and defensive discipline to make it all work anyways

This ignores that the Nuggets were shut down with Jokic having likely his worst game of the playoffs without the aforementioned DPOY-level defender.

Of course, there are ways that Jokic’s team could be better such that this could be broken more.

Yes, if you give Jokic a good enough team his weaknesses may not matter as much.

It’s also contingent on Jokic not really having a reliable second option that can cause some scrambling of his own that Jokic could exploit (it’s *very* hard for a defense in rotation to react to another guy they want to double getting the ball)

This seems to presume the Wolves ignored Murray and weren't making a point of placing their best wings on him whenever he got hot.

or a second option that could actually go at a guy like Gobert with any reasonable efficiency when that’s what the defense is trying to give

So a superstar

(or a second option that could get a pass from Jokic on a cut when Jokic is doubled and then draw Gobert in and get the pass or alley-oop to a third guy, such as Gordon).

So a superstar

also, why are the wolves just giving Gordon wide-open dunks? Is this 2k?

the book on Jokic precisely is to take these strong side cuts away, and teams are allowed to do this because he not good enough at skipping

It’s also contingent on the Nuggets not really having the ability to fully stretch the floor around Jokic—since that would draw Gobert away and open things up a ton. They didn’t really have any of that, and changing any of those things could’ve (and very likely would’ve) flipped things on their head a lot.

wierd to complain about Nuggets not being able to field a 5-out offense while simulateously covering for Jokic...when you argued a paragraph earlier that basically no team has a frontcourt that provides elite spacing and defense.

Crucially, though, I’m not really sure how this is particularly distinct from players who playmake more off the dribble than Jokic.

You do not see how it might be an advantage to move with the ball rather than be relatively stationary with it?

Or being able to shoot better than .84 pp as the ball-handler?



If you want to argue that a superstar who is an elite shooter with a quick trigger and can close out/playmake off this is what Jokic needs, I mean, sure, but that's pretty absurd on top of what he already has.

And it cant be like Trae Young because of defense

[lessthanjake]

This playoff series was a good lesson in assist totals not representing the value of creation, especially for those who spend less time of per possession on the ball because they are bad at handling the ball relative to most lead playmakers.

I think that’s way overly simplistic, and that you’re wanting to map on your own preconceived notions as an explanation.

Notions that lineup with winning I think. Simplicity is better than complexity when they share the same explanatory capacity.

Your explanations don’t “share the same explanatory capacity.” You just think they do, as you essentially admit in your first sentence.

This ignores that the Nuggets were shut down with Jokic having likely his worst game of the playoffs without the aforementioned DPOY-level defender.

Yes, and it was one game. And the fact that the Wolves *also* have Naz Reid, so they could still do the two-big-body thing (albeit with less rim protection) certainly helped make the whole thing translate fine within the confines of a single game. (Indeed, that helped it translate okay in general in the series, when guys in the Wolves frontcourt needed a rest). Just as importantly, Murray and MPJ really didn’t have it that game—they shot a combined 7 for 30 with only 2 FTs. The benefit of Gobert in this sort of scheme is mostly the effect he has on others’ ability to score not on Jokic, so if those others just *really* don’t have it that day, then him being gone is fine. I don’t think it’d have been fine for the Wolves over the course of a whole series, but for one game where Murray and MPJ are super cold, yeah.

Of course, there are ways that Jokic’s team could be better such that this could be broken more.

Yes, if you give Jokic a good enough team his weaknesses may not matter as much.

We aren’t even *really* talking about individual weaknesses (though I realize I used the term “weakness” in a prior post). It’s all a question of whether the team can convert on what is being created. Great defense can and will make what is created less good (through quick rotations by athletic defenders, etc.), and the supporting cast not playing well or just not being good enough can make them less likely to convert on what is created. You can say this is all about weaknesses of Jokic’s creation, but if what worked against the Nuggets wouldn’t have worked if his best teammates played even okay over the course of the series, then I don’t think that that framing is really right. Similarly, if what worked against the Nuggets wouldn’t have worked if he had a second-option that was on par with the vast majority of second-options on other title teams in history, then I don’t think the framing is right. Like, in a sense it’s a weakness, but there’s no one in NBA history that can create tons of successful offense for teammates that are incredibly cold, while playing against an historically great defense. At a certain point, teammates just have to make shots with the chances that such a good defense is ever going to allow.

It’s also contingent on Jokic not really having a reliable second option that can cause some scrambling of his own that Jokic could exploit (it’s *very* hard for a defense in rotation to react to another guy they want to double getting the ball)

This seems to presume the Wolves ignored Murray and weren't making a point of placing their best wings on him whenever he got hot.

They weren’t ignoring Murray and nothing I said presumed that they did. But he didn’t play well at all in the series and generally isn’t the level of player that we’d expect to be able to consistently punish a great defense that’s in rotation, nor is he the level of player that we’d expect to reliably create advantages of his own. Putting one of their best wing defenders on Murray just reflects that he’s more of a danger than the rest of the non-Jokic guys, not that he does any of the things I mentioned. The other guys on the Nuggets don’t do any of that either!

or a second option that could actually go at a guy like Gobert with any reasonable efficiency when that’s what the defense is trying to give

So a superstar

(or a second option that could get a pass from Jokic on a cut when Jokic is doubled and then draw Gobert in and get the pass or alley-oop to a third guy, such as Gordon).

So a superstar

I mean, to some degree yeah. The second option on most title teams is, in fact, a superstar. And even the ones that aren’t are virtually entirely stars that are better than Jamal Murray. This isn’t a coincidence. If you don’t have another serious star guy, you run into this exact problem—where your superstar can create an advantage but really good playoff defenses are good enough at closing the advantage that it can get snuffed out if you don’t have another guy that is great at exploiting it. If you don’t have that, then you basically just have to hope your supporting cast happens to be shooting great—which can happen but is generally not going to be consistent enough for a team like that to win year after year.

It’s also contingent on the Nuggets not really having the ability to fully stretch the floor around Jokic—since that would draw Gobert away and open things up a ton. They didn’t really have any of that, and changing any of those things could’ve (and very likely would’ve) flipped things on their head a lot.

wierd to complain about Nuggets not being able to field a 5-out offense while simulateously covering for Jokic...when you argued a paragraph earlier that basically no team has a frontcourt that provides elite spacing and defense.

I’m not sure I understand the point, since it’s not like Gordon is a rim protector either. Gordon isn’t a rim protector, doesn’t stretch the floor, and is only maybe arguably a big body. It’d be great if Gordon could either stretch the floor or be a great rim protector! But he can’t do either.

Crucially, though, I’m not really sure how this is particularly distinct from players who playmake more off the dribble than Jokic.

You do not see how it might be an advantage to move with the ball rather than be relatively stationary with it?

There’s no inherent positive to moving with the ball. The point is to create an advantage. That can be done by moving with the ball to a dangerous spot on the floor. It can be done by receiving the ball in a dangerous spot on the floor. And it can even be done by moving off ball in a dangerous area that exerts gravity. Jokic’s style of offense tends to be more focused on the second one. There’s a lot of players who do the first one more, and then we have guys like Steph that focus on the third one. None of these approaches are inherently better than the other. And all of them depend on teammates having the skill set to actually convert on the advantages that are created—which is a higher and higher bar the harder the defense is.

Or being able to shoot better than .84 pp as the ball-handler?



If you want to argue that a superstar who is an elite shooter with a quick trigger and can close out/playmake off this is what Jokic needs, I mean, sure, but that's pretty absurd on top of what he already has.

And it cant be like Trae Young because of defense

I’m not really sure where this data comes from or what the sample size on it is or what exactly it’s measuring (maybe it’s measuring *just* being a *pick-and-roll* ball handler, which Jokic basically never does, so the sample would just be garbage, and wouldn’t fully encompass scoring while ball-handling at all). According to the NBA’s website, here’s Jokic’s stats on “drives” in the last four years:

2023-2024 Playoffs: 59.5% FG% (68.8% TS%) on 7.8 drives per game
2023-2024 RS: 67.5% FG% (71.8% TS%) on 5.4 drives per game
2022-2023 Playoffs: 51.6% FG% (57.0% TS%) on 6.1 drives per game
2022-2023 RS: 68.8% FG% (73.4% TS%) on 4.3 drives per game
2021-2022 Playoffs: 77.8% FG% (85.9% TS%) on 5.4 drives per game
2021-2022 RS: 68.4% FG% (76.7% TS%) on 4.2 drives per game
2020-2021 Playoffs: 56.3% FG% (60.4% TS%) on 5.8 drives per game
2020-2021 RS: 56.7% FG% (64.1% TS%) on 4.6 drives per game

So yeah, I’m really not sure Jokic has an issue with how well he shoots as the ball handler.

[clearlynotjesse]

Pacers win would be a massive legacy boost for Carlisle. Think he'd be the center of the narratives if they win.

[sp6r=underrated]

Obviously Gobert isn't in Dirk's league as a player but this season could do for him what 2011 did for Dirk. Gobert has a rep as a bad playoff performer that a lot of people question. if the Wolves keep playing as well with him on the court throughout the playoffs, beat the Mavs and make a good showing against Boston his supporters will get much more vocal.

[Texas Chuck]

Dirk didn't have a refpgoing into 2011 as a bad playoff performer, I mean what? He had a bad 1st round (but his team survived) in 05 against Houston (remember the Germantor, Ryan Bowen's one shining moment?) and 2 bad games against We Believe. Other than that Dirk was one of the best playoff performers in the Association year after year.

Anyone who changed their opinion on Dirk as a playoff performer after 2011 was wrong before, not right after lol.

And yeah people are way wrong now on Gobert. But even if the Wolves win the title shutting people down he still won't get his flowers from the masses. That's never happening.

[sp6r=underrated]

Dirk didn't have a refpgoing into 2011 as a bad playoff performer, I mean what? He had a bad 1st round (but his team survived) in 05 against Houston (remember the Germantor, Ryan Bowen's one shining moment?) and 2 bad games against We Believe. Other than that Dirk was one of the best playoff performers in the Association year after year.

Anyone who changed their opinion on Dirk as a playoff performer after 2011 was wrong before, not right after lol.

And yeah people are way wrong now on Gobert. But even if the Wolves win the title shutting people down he still won't get his flowers from the masses. That's never happening.

The rep was wrong but there were a lot of people who knocked Dirk pre-2011 as a guy with playoff flaws. I remember a lot of people who focuses on the We Believe/TMac/2006 Finals.

[Fadeaway_J]

Dirk didn't have a refpgoing into 2011 as a bad playoff performer, I mean what? He had a bad 1st round (but his team survived) in 05 against Houston (remember the Germantor, Ryan Bowen's one shining moment?) and 2 bad games against We Believe. Other than that Dirk was one of the best playoff performers in the Association year after year.

Anyone who changed their opinion on Dirk as a playoff performer after 2011 was wrong before, not right after lol.

And yeah people are way wrong now on Gobert. But even if the Wolves win the title shutting people down he still won't get his flowers from the masses. That's never happening.

Yeah I'd give up on the Gobert discourse ever making a whole lot of sense at this point. Would still like to see him win it just for the comedy value of people trying to apportion the credit around him somehow.

[sp6r=underrated]

Boston winning would be interesting because the debate about tatum would intensify even more, but a ring would still get him serious respect he doesnt really get right now

Tatum would get a boost but the important impact of Boston crushing their way to the title would negate the theory that a GOAT team needs to be built around a guy who clearly best in the league.

[DorianRo]

I dont think Boston is taking it all for the simple, they're level isn't high at all this year, and all they have played is tomato can injured teams missing all their best players and they are STILL Losing games. . Not sure they even make it by Pacers much less beat probably Wolves in the finals