2023-24 NBA Season Discussion

[Colbinii]

Tim Legler is ruthless.

“Jamal Murray is 100% getting suspended… by the way, he was 3-for-18 — I'm not shocked he missed Marc Davis with that heat pack."

[Colbinii]

The only people who will say "first GOAT candidate since MJ" are the Lebron haters.

Now the one bone I'll throw Jokic skeptics is the 2023 Nuggets did face the weakest group of opponents for any NBA champion since Magic/Larry came on the seen. Their 4 opponents had a combined SRS of 2.16 and the peak opponent was 2.08. That is beyond terrible competition.

But I see that as a data point for skepticism around the Nuggets rather than Jokic. Denver has a good coach but they haven't done a great building around Jokic.

I already brought this up and the LeBron Hater's explained it away and of course, tried to provide context to each team's SRS.

I think we can all agree that SRS doesn't do a good job of capturing the quality of last year's opponents.

The version of LA that Denver played wasn't a 0.43 SRS team. They didn't play the team that started 2-10 with Westbrook, or a group missing LeBron/AD for nearly 30 games/piece. They played the post-tradeline version that was arguably the hottest team in the league.

The version of Miami they played wasn't a -0.13 team. That was a team that knocked off a 3.61 SRS, 2.99 SRS and 6.38 SRS.

Min was missing Towns most of the year, but he played against Denver, although Naz/Jaden didn't. Phoenix didn't have Durant the whole year but played against Denver, though they also didn't have time to gel with him either.

Every team they played was materially different from the overall season numbers. I can't think of a run where SRS would be less useful.

And then I address all the points, but the explanation isn't enough.

Okay, what were they?

The Lakers literally beat a one-handed Ja Morant team while Ja played in just 5 games [and again, literally had 1 hand].

In round 2 the Lakers beat a 1.66 SRS Golden State Warriors team who in round 1 barely squeeked by a 2.30 SRS Sacramento Kings team.



This is because Miami was hot from 3 though. They weren't hot from 3 in the NBA FInals, which means Miami was very much a -0.13 team it the NBA Finals.



Towns was putrid and Gobert was hurt most of last year with massive back pains.

Phoenix isn't any better this year with Durant [2.53 SRS this year, 2.08 last year].

Both of these teams RS SRS paints them accurately to their playoff levels last year.



I disagree. I don't see Miami, Minnesota or Phoenix being any different than their regular season SRS in the series they played Denver.

Like come on. None of these teams [Minnesota, Miami, Lakers, Phoenix] were actual title contenders or close to it.

SRS may not be perfect, but let's not pretend this was some amazing run Denver did. They played mediocre [at best] playoff teams.

I'm in basic agreement with your stance. Even under the most charitable light that was a weak core of teams they played. Now I have Lebron as the clear GOAT. For me the gap between him and #2 is greater than the gap from 2-4.

But I will say Lebron's teams did benefit for part of the Eastern years with how weak their first/second round competition was. There was a stretch for Miami where they kind of had a slightly harder version of what Showtime had: hard final competition but mostly soft conference opponents. And I think a lot of fans under-appreciate the benefit of playing 1-2 SRS clubs rather than 3-4 SRS clubs.

100%. LeBron faced some great teams in the East [2007 Pistons, 2008 Celtics, 2009 Magic] and then some teams who were legitimately underrated by SRS [the 2011-2013 Celtics with older KG missing time in the RS], but I am not going to sit here behind my computer and explain-away why the East was actually better than it was. There were legitimately bad teams in most post-season where LeBron teams dominated.

Jokic was incredible last post-season. He also played weak teams in all 4 rounds of the post-season. Both of those can be true. We don't need to pretend Jokic and Denver played against good teams last post-season to bolster Jokic's case because his on-court play spoke for itself last year, he was unreal and incredible. The mere fact that he was getting brought up in discussion with ATG players after his run speaks for itself.

[Ambrose]

You are preaching to the choir, I said earlier in this thread, both sides of those hot takes are wild. But I get why the knives are coming out to this extent because of the hot takes earlier building him up.

You damn well know if the Nuggets somehow win this we are going right back to, 'He's the first GOAT candidate since MJ or something"

The only people who will say "first GOAT candidate since MJ" are the Lebron haters.

Now the one bone I'll throw Jokic skeptics is the 2023 Nuggets did face the weakest group of opponents for any NBA champion since Magic/Larry came on the seen. Their 4 opponents had a combined SRS of 2.16 and the peak opponent was 2.08. That is beyond terrible competition.

But I see that as a data point for skepticism around the Nuggets rather than Jokic. Denver has a good coach but they haven't done a great building around Jokic.

I already brought this up and the LeBron Hater's explained it away and of course, tried to provide context to each team's SRS.

I think KG could be number 1.

It's important to remember Jokic and the Nuggets didn't beat a single team better than the 2004 Sacramento Kings or 2004 Los Angeles Lakers.

In Fact, the SRS of the teams the Nuggets faced were pitiful.

-.22, 2.08, 0.43 and -.13. That's basically playing 4 low-end playoff teams.

I can only imagine the backlash of opponents SRS if it were LeBron.

I think we can all agree that SRS doesn't do a good job of capturing the quality of last year's opponents.

The version of LA that Denver played wasn't a 0.43 SRS team. They didn't play the team that started 2-10 with Westbrook, or a group missing LeBron/AD for nearly 30 games/piece. They played the post-tradeline version that was arguably the hottest team in the league.

The version of Miami they played wasn't a -0.13 team. That was a team that knocked off a 3.61 SRS, 2.99 SRS and 6.38 SRS.

Min was missing Towns most of the year, but he played against Denver, although Naz/Jaden didn't. Phoenix didn't have Durant the whole year but played against Denver, though they also didn't have time to gel with him either.

Every team they played was materially different from the overall season numbers. I can't think of a run where SRS would be less useful.

And then I address all the points, but the explanation isn't enough.

The version of LA that Denver played wasn't a 0.43 SRS team. They didn't play the team that started 2-10 with Westbrook, or a group missing LeBron/AD for nearly 30 games/piece. They played the post-tradeline version that was arguably the hottest team in the league.

Okay, what were they?

The Lakers literally beat a one-handed Ja Morant team while Ja played in just 5 games [and again, literally had 1 hand].

In round 2 the Lakers beat a 1.66 SRS Golden State Warriors team who in round 1 barely squeeked by a 2.30 SRS Sacramento Kings team.

The version of Miami they played wasn't a -0.13 team. That was a team that knocked off a 3.61 SRS, 2.99 SRS and 6.38 SRS.

This is because Miami was hot from 3 though. They weren't hot from 3 in the NBA FInals, which means Miami was very much a -0.13 team it the NBA Finals.

Min was missing Towns most of the year, but he played against Denver, although Naz/Jaden didn't. Phoenix didn't have Durant the whole year but played against Denver, though they also didn't have time to gel with him either.

Towns was putrid and Gobert was hurt most of last year with massive back pains.

Phoenix isn't any better this year with Durant [2.53 SRS this year, 2.08 last year].

Both of these teams RS SRS paints them accurately to their playoff levels last year.

Every team they played was materially different from the overall season numbers. I can't think of a run where SRS would be less useful.

I disagree. I don't see Miami, Minnesota or Phoenix being any different than their regular season SRS in the series they played Denver.

Like come on. None of these teams [Minnesota, Miami, Lakers, Phoenix] were actual title contenders or close to it.

SRS may not be perfect, but let's not pretend this was some amazing run Denver did. They played mediocre [at best] playoff teams.

On what planet am I a LeBron hater? I've been defending the guy since 2007

How dare I provide context! All I said was SRS wasn't useful last year, which I stand by. I didn't say he faced godly competition. You're better than this my guy. Much better.

[Texas Chuck]

As always SRS isn't enough to describe competition. Teams make in-season moves, lose players to injury or get them back, individual matchups are always relevant etc...

And all the Nuggets could do was beat the teams in front of them. They don't get to say, no not that team give me the 01 Lakers, the 08 Celtics, and the 16 Warriors so people will respect our accomplishments.

Nuggets were champions. Jokic played great. Jokic played great this season on the heels of that. His team made quick work of the team they faced in the conference finals just last year with two top 10 players on it, and now they've have a rough 2 games.

If you think this defines Jokic there is no convincing you of anything different. You are a prisoner of the moment.

[Colbinii]

As always SRS isn't enough to describe competition. Teams make in-season moves, lose players to injury or get them back, individual matchups are always relevant etc...

Yup. Which is why the person who listed the SRS [Me] also provided context to each team listed as to why or why not their SRS reflected the level of play.

It's like context matters, and I aim to provide context whenever it is needed

And all the Nuggets could do was beat the teams in front of them. They don't get to say, no not that team give me the 01 Lakers, the 08 Celtics, and the 16 Warriors so people will respect our accomplishments.

What does this mean?

Nuggets were champions. Jokic played great. Jokic played great this season on the heels of that. His team made quick work of the team they faced in the conference finals just last year with two top 10 players on it, and now they've have a rough 2 games.

If you think this defines Jokic there is no convincing you of anything different. You are a prisoner of the moment.

Who are you talking to here?

[Special_Puppy]

As always SRS isn't enough to describe competition. Teams make in-season moves, lose players to injury or get them back, individual matchups are always relevant etc...

And all the Nuggets could do was beat the teams in front of them. They don't get to say, no not that team give me the 01 Lakers, the 08 Celtics, and the 16 Warriors so people will respect our accomplishments.

Nuggets were champions. Jokic played great. Jokic played great this season on the heels of that. His team made quick work of the team they faced in the conference finals just last year with two top 10 players on it, and now they've have a rough 2 games.

If you think this defines Jokic there is no convincing you of anything different. You are a prisoner of the moment.

SRS clearly underrated those teams, but it was still weak competition relative to other champs

Read on Twitter

[Texas Chuck]

Yup. Which is why the person who listed the SRS [Me]
Who are you talking to here?

You were not the only one who talked about SRS. I'm talking to everyone.

And fwiw I didn't find you context particularly constructive. In fact much of it was clearly reductive and more a defense of your position than an actual analysis of those teams. Things like Miami shot bad so they sucked isn't real SRS context. Or claiming a man with 2 hands literally had one.

[Dutchball97]

I don't see how people still believe the Celtics will win the title. You guys think Tatum and Brown won't crumble against that Minnesota defense when they've even got Jokic flustered?

[Texas Chuck]

I don't see how people still believe the Celtics will win the title. You guys think Tatum and Brown won't crumble against that Minnesota defense when they've even got Jokic flustered?

Minnesota didn't go undefeated this year and I missed it?

but let's look just at the RS matchups:

game 1 -- Tatum 32 points on 12/22 2/8 6/8 --- without looking at game film, guessing the 3pt% is variance considering how well he shot overall. Brown 26 on 10/21 3/8 3/4.

game 2 -- Tatum 45 pts 13/26 6/11 (again variance--positive this time), 13/14; Brown 35pts 9/16 4/7 13/13.

Both games in OT with home teams winning. Boston stars I'd say weren't crumbling by any stretch of the imagination. And these are guys who have been in a bunch of big playoff games. If they meet, they might struggle. But we definitely can't say that with your degree of certainty.

[Special_Puppy]

I don't see how people still believe the Celtics will win the title. You guys think Tatum and Brown won't crumble against that Minnesota defense when they've even got Jokic flustered?

Nuggets rOTG this year: +3.7
Celtics rOTG this year: +8.3

[Dutchball97]

I don't see how people still believe the Celtics will win the title. You guys think Tatum and Brown won't crumble against that Minnesota defense when they've even got Jokic flustered?

Minnesota didn't go undefeated this year and I missed it?

but let's look just at the RS matchups:

game 1 -- Tatum 32 points on 12/22 2/8 6/8 --- without looking at game film, guessing the 3pt% is variance considering how well he shot overall. Brown 26 on 10/21 3/8 3/4.

game 2 -- Tatum 45 pts 13/26 6/11 (again variance--positive this time), 13/14; Brown 35pts 9/16 4/7 13/13.

Both games in OT with home teams winning. Boston stars I'd say weren't crumbling by any stretch of the imagination. And these are guys who have been in a bunch of big playoff games. If they meet, they might struggle. But we definitely can't say that with your degree of certainty.

Post-season is a completely different beast than the regular season. Tatum and Brown being in a bunch of big play-offs games isn't really an argument imo when they've been pretty inconsistent in them, with them disappearing in important games not being an uncommon occurrence.

And I mean we've kind of had this back and forth for the first round as well, after 1 game I knew the Nuggets and Timberwolves were going to meet in the 2nd round and I was completely right. After game 1 of the Timberwolves vs the Nuggets I said the Wolves are going to win the title and I'm sticking by that prediction. The Nuggets could reverse sweep them, Luka or SGA could put on a masterclass in the conference finals or the impossible could happen and Jaylen Brown doesn't do a houdini when it matters most but none of those things seem likely to me.

[Texas Chuck]

Right so arguments that disagree with yours aren't arguments for reasons. L O L Real evidence can be dismissed by feelings.

But yeah you correctly predicted the favorites would win their series and meet in round 2. Bold. And if the Wolves go on to win the title I promise you I will give you all of your flowers.

[Dutchball97]

Right so arguments that disagree with yours aren't arguments for reasons. L O L Real evidence can be dismissed by feelings.

But yeah you correctly predicted the favorites would win their series and meet in round 2. Bold. And if the Wolves go on to win the title I promise you I will give you all of your flowers.

If it was such an obvious prediction, why were you so adamant to not call these series over after 1 game, hmm?

But I'll be eating crow if the Timberwolves don't win a ring. I won't be acting like a Laker fan trying to claim a moral victory, if the Wolves lose a competitive finals series. It's title or bust. I'd rather be confident in a honest take than cower away and keep my options open so I don't risk looking dumb.

[parsnips33]

Thankfully, it's now legal in most states to make some serious money if you can accurately predict the result of NBA games

[Texas Chuck]

If it was such an obvious prediction, why were you so adamant to not call these series over after 1 game, hmm?

Because I understand games are played on the court not on paper? Because I understand one game doesn't always tell us a complete story?

I freely admit I'm a skeptic and a slow adopter. The Wolves have been great. And I'm still not sold. I want to see them actually do it. And to date these playoffs they are absolutely doing it and I acknowledge it.

But I wouldn't ever do as you did and predict a title based on winning game 1 of a 1st round series. That's just how we are different. I'm not telling you not to feel as confident as you do. But I do disagree with dismissing Boston as a threat (and basically the other 6 teams still alive as well). I don't have the Wolves as an overwhelming favorite against the field.

[Heej]

That 1st half defense from the Wolves was maybe the best I've ever seen in the playoffs(without their best defender too). Certainly up there if not the best.

They've been incredible thus far.

How often have we seen the best big man defender in the league and arguably the best perimeter defender on the same team? Spurs with Bowen and Duncan? Maybe Cs with Tony Allen and KG or Bulls with Butler and Noah.

Either way just having McDaniels and Gobert is anomalous from an all time sense. Throw in Ant and NAW and this team looks like one of the better ones I've seen all time on defense.

[parsnips33]

That 1st half defense from the Wolves was maybe the best I've ever seen in the playoffs(without their best defender too). Certainly up there if not the best.

They've been incredible thus far.

How often have we seen the best big man defender in the league and arguably the best perimeter defender on the same team? Spurs with Bowen and Duncan? Maybe Cs with Tony Allen and KG

Draymond-Andre

[Dutchball97]

If it was such an obvious prediction, why were you so adamant to not call these series over after 1 game, hmm?

Because I understand games are played on the court not on paper? Because I understand one game doesn't always tell us a complete story?

I freely admit I'm a skeptic and a slow adopter. The Wolves have been great. And I'm still not sold. I want to see them actually do it. And to date these playoffs they are absolutely doing it and I acknowledge it.

But I wouldn't ever do as you did and predict a title based on winning game 1 of a 1st round series. That's just how we are different. I'm not telling you not to feel as confident as you do. But I do disagree with dismissing Boston as a threat (and basically the other 6 teams still alive as well). I don't have the Wolves as an overwhelming favorite against the field.

Then I'm kind of starting to wonder what the purpose of this forum even is. Can't give thoughts about a game because that's GB style "prisoner of the moment" hot takes, can't use stats to analyze the play-offs because low sample size and now the squad is taking offense at someone making a prediction. We can joke around about 1 game but calling a team the favorite after a strong regular season where they missed out on the 1st seed in the west by 1 game, a dominant first round sweep against a team people thought had a legit shot at upsetting them and then a statement game over the defending champs in their home shouldn't be seen as the wild take it's being portrayed as at the moment. And now after this game 2 demolition without the DPOY even being there, I'm not sure what else to add.

[Texas Chuck]

Duncan/Kawhi

[Texas Chuck]

If it was such an obvious prediction, why were you so adamant to not call these series over after 1 game, hmm?

Because I understand games are played on the court not on paper? Because I understand one game doesn't always tell us a complete story?

I freely admit I'm a skeptic and a slow adopter. The Wolves have been great. And I'm still not sold. I want to see them actually do it. And to date these playoffs they are absolutely doing it and I acknowledge it.

But I wouldn't ever do as you did and predict a title based on winning game 1 of a 1st round series. That's just how we are different. I'm not telling you not to feel as confident as you do. But I do disagree with dismissing Boston as a threat (and basically the other 6 teams still alive as well). I don't have the Wolves as an overwhelming favorite against the field.

Then I'm kind of starting to wonder what the purpose of this forum even is. Can't give thoughts about a game because that's GB style "prisoner of the moment" hot takes, can't use stats to analyze the play-offs because low sample size and now the squad is taking offense at someone making a prediction. We can joke around about 1 game but calling a team the favorite after a strong regular season where they missed out on the 1st seed in the west by 1 game, a dominant first round sweep against a team people thought had a legit shot at upsetting them and then a statement game over the defending champs in their home shouldn't be seen as the wild take it's being portrayed as at the moment. And now after this game 2 demolition without the DPOY even being there, I'm not sure what else to add.

Huh? You can give thoughts about the game. You did. In those thoughts you posted the idea that nobody else should consider the Celtics a contender(ironically while complaining about feeling like your thoughts are being muted) and I responded with some pretty compelling evidence(imo, your feelings outweighed my actual data unfortunately...) why I disagreed.

Isn't that what the board is about? You express and opinion and others are allowed to agree or perhaps disagree? You seem upset that you offered an opinion and I expressed skepticism.

And I didn't tell you your take was wild. In fact I very specifically said what I will highlight above. I talked about how I approached things and admitted that I was late to the party at times.

Now do I think some of the silly posts surrounding Jokic were hot takes? Of course I do because of course they were. You can read the posts for yourself. They were just people who had been waiting to dunk on a guy. We could pretend otherwise but why should we play dumb?