2023-24 NBA Season Discussion

[Ron Swanson]

It doesn't seem to matter how many times he pops up near the top of all these offensive efficiency/impact metrics, and it seems forgotten that there's like, only a handful of greats who've actually had as good an age-26 and under playoff resume. The discourse around Giannis these last 20 or so months flirting with this view that he's some sort of Karl Malone-esque postseason underachiever/guy who gets routinely "figured out in the playoffs" is certainly weird. He's had, what? Like, 2 playoff series in his career you could point to as "disappointing" performance-wise (2019 ECF & bubble series vs. Miami)?

[lessthanjake]

Yeah, my point is Tatum shouldn't be considered a top 5 guy even with the analytics tools we do have. The only angle he could get there is by weighing his durability. Otherwise, Wade, Kawhi, and Dirk are just outright better players than him especially offensively.

Yeah, he's kind of bleh in comparison to other lead guys. It definitely feels like his rep is at least a little outsized due to the quality of his team more than his individual play, particularly come the playoffs. He isn't bad, he's a pretty good offensive player, he just isn't top-tier by any stretch of the imagination. Another contemporary player who leans a little too hard into the 3 and has, as a result, significant variance issues. He's also kind of all over the place with his mid-range game and how much he's able to get to the rim and such, which makes him a little hard to nail down as far as which version you're going to get.

He has a lot to prove in the playoffs. He's not an elite offensive player in either the regular or postseason, "merely" a pretty good one. And that has to impact how people assess his utility to at least some degree. There is also some truth to the idea that he matches off his lower offensive ceiling with his defensive value, and they are an elite defense after all. Nevertheless...

I don’t disagree with these critiques, but I think there’s huge winners’ and losers’ bias in peoples’ perception. If Tatum wins a title this season after being on a team with a historically great regular season SRS, I think suddenly people will naturally put more weight on the importance of Tatum’s strengths and less weight on the importance of Tatum’s weaknesses (not to mention that they may decide he’s disproven certain perceived weaknesses). This is natural, because when a player wins we think about the strengths that led to them winning, and when they lose we think about the weaknesses that led to them losing. It’s a completely different emphasis, and means that a title win dramatically changes the general perception of a player.

[tsherkin]

I don’t disagree with these critiques, but I think there’s huge winners’ and losers’ bias in peoples’ perception.

Not salient to my remarks. True, in the broader sense, of course.

If Tatum wins a title this season after being on a team with a historically great regular season SRS, I think suddenly people will naturally put more weight on the importance of Tatum’s strengths and less weight on the importance of Tatum’s weaknesses (not to mention that they may decide he’s disproven certain perceived weaknesses). This is natural, because when a player wins we think about the strengths that led to them winning, and when they lose we think about the weaknesses that led to them losing. It’s a completely different emphasis, and means that a title win dramatically changes the general perception of a player.

I'm sure they will, unless he dogs it badly on offense and is largely picked up by Zinger and Jaylen Brown along the way.

Also, it's player-specific. People cut down Lebron no matter what he does, or how he does it, because his presence threatens legacies like Kobe and Jordan. So stuff like that gets in the way when there are insecure, highly-vocal fanbases involved (not that those are the only two, obviously).

In other words, to whom Tatum gets compared will make some difference as well.

[tsherkin]

Sidebar from the Tatum stuff, but it's been an interesting start. Lillard's outburst for Milwaukee, Clippers smacking Dallas, Ant vs KD, it hasn't been a dull opening to the first round. That's been fun.

[lessthanjake]

I don’t disagree with these critiques, but I think there’s huge winners’ and losers’ bias in peoples’ perception.

Not salient to my remarks. True, in the broader sense, of course.

If Tatum wins a title this season after being on a team with a historically great regular season SRS, I think suddenly people will naturally put more weight on the importance of Tatum’s strengths and less weight on the importance of Tatum’s weaknesses (not to mention that they may decide he’s disproven certain perceived weaknesses). This is natural, because when a player wins we think about the strengths that led to them winning, and when they lose we think about the weaknesses that led to them losing. It’s a completely different emphasis, and means that a title win dramatically changes the general perception of a player.

I'm sure they will, unless he dogs it badly on offense and is largely picked up by Zinger and Jaylen Brown along the way.

Also, it's player-specific. People cut down Lebron no matter what he does, or how he does it, because his presence threatens legacies like Kobe and Jordan. So stuff like that gets in the way when there are insecure, highly-vocal fanbases involved (not that those are the only two, obviously).

In other words, to whom Tatum gets compared will make some difference as well.

Yes, there’s a possible world where the Celtics win the title without Tatum actually being good. That’s a scenario where perhaps the Celtics actually *would* be seen like those prior superstar-less title teams. That seems not super likely to be the outcome though IMO. Regardless of which one is the cause and which one is the effect, I think if the Celtics do well it is highly likely that Tatum will have played well.

Anyways, all this just goes back to my point that I think our default assumption should be that the 10.7 SRS team will likely win the title. The natural response to this is that they don’t have the requisite superstar power that is almost always needed to win a title. My point was that they have Tatum, and I think he’s good enough to cover that base. Of course, I’d rather have a guy like Jokic than Tatum, but I find it difficult to conclude that a guy who is working on multiple all-NBA first team selections in a row and finishing around 5th in MVP voting each year is not good enough to be the best player on a title team.

[tsherkin]

Yes, there’s a possible world where the Celtics win the title without Tatum actually being good.

Mmm. I don't even know if it would be without him being good. He'd still be moving the ball, he'd still be rebounding, still be defending. His scoring is only so good to begin with, and they are pretty resilient, especially this year. He'd still be good, though, even if he's bricking his volume 3pt shooting volume. Not as good as he could be, of course, but we spend a lot of time harping on players when their shot isn't going as if it is the death knell for their play quality.

That’s a scenario where perhaps the Celtics actually *would* be seen like those prior superstar-less title teams. That seems not super likely to be the outcome though IMO. Regardless of which one is the cause and which one is the effect, I think if the Celtics do well it is highly likely that Tatum will have played well.

Tatum isn't a superstar, or at least not an offensive superstar. I think that's reasonably clear at this point.

Anyways, all this just goes back to my point that I think our default assumption should be that the 10.7 SRS team will likely win the title.

There is a strong chance that if they keep playing at that level, that they will, yes. But we have seen RS play differ sufficiently from PS play before, so we'll have to see.

The natural response to this is that they don’t have the requisite superstar power that is almost always needed to win a title. My point was that they have Tatum, and I think he’s good enough to cover that base. Of course, I’d rather have a guy like Jokic than Tatum, but I find it difficult to conclude that a guy who is working on multiple all-NBA first team selections in a row and finishing around 5th in MVP voting each year is not good enough to be the best player on a title team.

If the team plays as well as it can and he hits his 3s at the right times, there's nothing stopping them from winning. I don't know that it tells us as much about Tatum as it does about the depth and quality of the team overall, though. I also wonder if he's even the best player on that team.

[lessthanjake]

Tatum isn't a superstar, or at least not an offensive superstar. I think that's reasonably clear at this point.

But see this is exactly what I think is a product of losers’ bias. In the last three years, Tatum has averaged 28.5 points per 75 possessions, on solidly positive rTS%, with a combination of a decent number of assists and a pretty low number of turnovers. In those years, his team has been 1st, 2nd, and 7th in offensive rating, and he’s been their best offensive player. And he is 5th in the NBA in ORAPM both in the last 3 years and in the last 5 years (https://psteve.shinyapps.io/RAPM/). I think that that is pretty clearly an offensive superstar, and the reason he’s not necessarily seen that way is that the playoff performances haven’t quite been up to that standard and his team has lost. But if he wins a title while putting up numbers remotely like that, then that reason goes away! Which isn’t to say he’s an offensive superstar to the level of a guy like Jokic. But he doesn’t need to be for purposes of the point I’m making (I’m not saying he’s the best player in the league!), especially when his defense is really good.

[tsherkin]

But see this is exactly what I think is a product of losers’ bias. In the last three years, Tatum has averaged 28.5 points per 75 possessions, on solidly positive rTS%, with a combination of a decent number of assists and a pretty low number of turnovers. In those years, his team has been 1st, 2nd, and 7th in offensive rating, and he’s been their best offensive player. And he is 5th in the NBA in ORAPM both in the last 3 years and in the last 5 years (https://psteve.shinyapps.io/RAPM/). I think that that is pretty clearly an offensive superstar, and the reason he’s not necessarily seen that way is that the playoff performances haven’t quite been up to that standard and his team has lost. But if he wins a title while putting up numbers remotely like that, then that reason goes away! Which isn’t to say he’s an offensive superstar to the level of a guy like Jokic. But he doesn’t need to be for purposes of the point I’m making (I’m not saying he’s the best player in the league!), especially when his defense is really good.

I see where you're coming from. I don't hold O-RAPM in as high regard as you do, so perhaps that's why I'm less into that ranking. I think the variance in his game is too significant and I think that being a +2% rTS guy is good but not THAT good. Particularly since he isn't a tier one playmaker. He's quite good; that is a baseline over which we can both agree, lest my various negative-nancy'g sound like I think him crap. It's only because we are on opposite sides of this debate that I am so focused on those aspects.

There is also the fact that I likely hold the term 'superstar' a little more sacrosanct than do you. I reserve that for the best of the best in the league, and he is not that on offense. And he is not traditionally that stunning on O come the postseason, either. The opener against Miami wasn't exactly a tour de force, either. He was hot garbage from three in volume, which left him shooting 7/18 overall. And after going 5/11 in the first half, that left him going 2/7 in the second half, and he was quite brutal in the 4th. And if you don't count him hitting FTs as Miami was fouling in the last 60 seconds, like, damn. He was bad in the 4th. It's a single game, but it's a Tatum-ish game, particularly in the playoffs.

[lessthanjake]

For further reference on Tatum, let’s look at what some other impact metrics say about him:

- In terms of EPM, if we add up EW in the last three seasons, Tatum has 46.0 EW. That is only below Jokic (56.4), Giannis (46.7), and Luka (46.5). Embiid is close and obviously missed a lot more time than Tatum.

- In terms of LEBRON, if we add up WAR in the last three seasons, Tatum has 30.9. That is only below Jokic (37.9) and Giannis (31.2), with Embiid again being close while missing a lot more time. (Note: It seems like their WAR was on a somewhat lower scale this past season than in the prior two, so that might affect things slightly on the margins).

- In terms of RAPM, by one measure, we have Tatum being #2 in three-year RAPM and #1 in five-year RAPM (https://thebasketballdatabase.com/2023-24RegularSeasonPlayerRAPMComprehensive.html). And we have another RAPM measure that has Tatum being #5 in three-year RAPM and #2 in five-year RAPM.

I think impact data paints Tatum as a top five player. As does awards voting, of course. If he wins a title this year, I think people will retrospectively look back at stuff like this and basically say “Yeah, of course Tatum is a top-five guy.”

[lessthanjake]

But see this is exactly what I think is a product of losers’ bias. In the last three years, Tatum has averaged 28.5 points per 75 possessions, on solidly positive rTS%, with a combination of a decent number of assists and a pretty low number of turnovers. In those years, his team has been 1st, 2nd, and 7th in offensive rating, and he’s been their best offensive player. And he is 5th in the NBA in ORAPM both in the last 3 years and in the last 5 years (https://psteve.shinyapps.io/RAPM/). I think that that is pretty clearly an offensive superstar, and the reason he’s not necessarily seen that way is that the playoff performances haven’t quite been up to that standard and his team has lost. But if he wins a title while putting up numbers remotely like that, then that reason goes away! Which isn’t to say he’s an offensive superstar to the level of a guy like Jokic. But he doesn’t need to be for purposes of the point I’m making (I’m not saying he’s the best player in the league!), especially when his defense is really good.

I see where you're coming from. I don't hold O-RAPM in as high regard as you do, so perhaps that's why I'm less into that ranking. I think the variance in his game is too significant and I think that being a +2% rTS guy is good but not THAT good. Particularly since he isn't a tier one playmaker. He's quite good; that is a baseline over which we can both agree, lest my various negative-nancy'g sound like I think him crap. It's only because we are on opposite sides of this debate that I am so focused on those aspects.

There is also the fact that I likely hold the term 'superstar' a little more sacrosanct than do you. I reserve that for the best of the best in the league, and he is not that on offense. And he is not traditionally that stunning on O come the postseason, either. The opener against Miami wasn't exactly a tour de force, either. He was hot garbage from three in volume, which left him shooting 7/18 overall. And after going 5/11 in the first half, that left him going 2/7 in the second half, and he was quite brutal in the 4th. And if you don't count him hitting FTs as Miami was fouling in the last 60 seconds, like, damn. He was bad in the 4th. It's a single game, but it's a Tatum-ish game, particularly in the playoffs.

I wouldn’t put much credence on what happened near the end of a game that was essentially over by the time much of the stats you’re referring to occurred. Teams and players that are way ahead don’t play as well. Which is also why I think Luka’s numbers in Game 1 are far too kind to him—putting up numbers near the end of a game your team is blown out in or mailing it in near the end of a game your team is ahead by a ton in doesn’t really mean much to me. Of course, it’s also just a one-game sample. And he had 10 assists and 10 rebounds in the game too. But yeah, I agree it wasn’t a tour de force. He’s not going to be judged on the basis of this series though, since the Celtics way overmatch the Butler-less Heat.

[tsherkin]

I think impact data paints Tatum as a top five player. As does awards voting, of course. If he wins a title this year, I think people will retrospectively look back at stuff like this and basically say “Yeah, of course Tatum is a top-five guy.”

I wouldn't be surprised. I wouldn't agree with it, but that's about par for the course. *shrugs*

He feels to me more like a top 10-20 guy, and EPM (particularly O-EPM) is more in line with that than is RAPM. And then again, there is the postseason, though now we are circling and won't badger you with repetition.

We shall see what happens with the playoffs this year, I suppose, and how this bears out over time.

[tsherkin]

I wouldn’t put much credence on what happened near the end of a game that was essentially over by the time much of the stats you’re referring to occurred. Teams and players that are way ahead don’t play as well

Well, as I said, we'll see how the playoffs go. But as far as him shooting poorly, that isn't an issue confined to the end of games.

. Which is also why I think Luka’s numbers in Game 1 are far too kind to him

Oh he was dog**** for 3 quarters and got hot at the end, for sure.

He’s not going to be judged on the basis of this series though, since the Celtics way overmatch the Butler-less Heat.

Only if they lose (which is quite unlikely) will he be judged on this series, I agree.

[tone wone]

In other words, to whom Tatum gets compared will make some difference as well.

Luka being a 6'7 230lb PG instead of being a 6'7 230lb wing has really helped Tatum's standing. That's who he should be compared to but the league is in a weird place where all the 20-something stars are either Bigs or Guards. Tatum's the only wing.

Positional scarcity and durability did a lot for Dwight Howard in the late 00s/early 10s and it's currently helping Tatum.

[RCM88x]

Another time I see the Bucks doing well in the playoffs without Giannis. There are people around saying that Gianni's has been playing with underwhelming supporting cast and I have never seen that, not even close.

It's possible they'll lose this series without Giannis (he will come back, right?), but they are competitive against solid (though mediocre) playoff team.

His supporting casts have usually been pretty solid, don't get me wrong. Middleton, Lopez, Jrue/Lillard is a very solid 2-4. It's the guys beyond that which have been pretty inconsistent I think. Beasley found a great role on this team, and Portis had some good years in the past, Connaughton too. This year I don't think their bench is good at all, they've all dropped off a lot I think. Perhaps they've just been hit harder by the coaching carousel, Middleton absence, and Dame integration more than the top guys.

They obviously should be a tier 1 title contender, no question. Giannis' health just has made things complicated. And last year sort of proved that Miami was at least a low level contender despite not having the RS record, so I don't think losing to him even if they had a healthy Giannis' would be some massive indictment of their team either.

Oh, I don't think you'll find a lot of top tier all-time great players who have had two massive seeding upsets to the same team in the playoffs, and let alone to an opponent that doesn't have a star who is supposed to be a serious rival.

It's certainly possible to blow the upsets out of proportion, but Giannis very much looked like he was going to be the best player of his generation, and for a player of that stature, this these have been eyebrow raising.

I think it all comes down to expectations and standards. If we expected Giannis to have some sort of Lebron level dominance in the east playoffs then he's certainly been disappointing these last few years, but I think that's just unrealistic. I don't really see a series where I can point to his play as a major reason his team lost.

And now, more than ever, we have a complete disregard for the regular season to the point where seeding is just not an indication of team quality in any way. Just this year we saw half the east tanking the last few weeks to avoid a possible #7 and #8 seed. There was a massive media push for the Lakers to tank the play in game so they could be the #8 instead of #7. Miami was far from your average 8 seed last year, we saw that in their run to the Finals, despite their best player having a bum ankle for most of the run (Butler was only 100% in the Bucks series).

All this is to say that I don't think we can keep applying the standards of the past to the players of the present. Individual teams approach to the game have changed more in the last decade than they probably did in the 30 years prior. The media's coverage of the game has changed massively too. It's just different.

Now I'll admit, if he never has another dominant playoff run I will definitely be disappointed. Hopefully for all of our sakes we can all see that come to fruition soon.

[tsherkin]

Luka being a 6'7 230lb PG instead of being a 6'7 230lb wing has really helped Tatum's standing. That's who he should be compared to but the league is in a weird place where all the 20-something stars are either Bigs or Guards. Tatum's the only wing.

Positional scarcity and durability did a lot for Dwight Howard in the late 00s/early 10s and it's currently helping Tatum.

Yeah, positional labels are weird. The aged archetypes from > 40 years ago aren't really appropriate, and haven't been for quite some time.

[Doctor MJ]

In other words, to whom Tatum gets compared will make some difference as well.

Luka being a 6'7 230lb PG instead of being a 6'7 230lb wing has really helped Tatum's standing. That's who he should be compared to but the league is in a weird place where all the 20-something stars are either Bigs or Guards. Tatum's the only wing.

Positional scarcity and durability did a lot for Dwight Howard in the late 00s/early 10s and it's currently helping Tatum.

This might be a small factor, but league accolades have increasingly gone position-less, and I don't think Tatum's typically hyped as "the best wing in the game" so much as he is "the best player on an elite team".

[tsherkin]

This might be a small factor, but league accolades have increasingly gone position-less, and I don't think Tatum's typically hyped as "the best wing in the game" so much as he is "the best player on an elite team".

That's fair. I think the remark bears more relevance to conversation here than anything related to award voting.

[Lou Fan]

FWIW Dirk might well have been the MVP in 2011 if he didn't miss those games and his team fall apart without him. Dallas with Dirk that year was playing at over a 60 win pace and it was all built around Dirk. To suggest he wasn't seen as a top 5 player that season prior to the playoffs requires completely ignoring the regular season.

I get how some people in their minds had written Dirk off because the team success had dried up, but his numbers continued to be what they always were (in both RS and playoffs). I promise you the league still new this was an all-NBA level player during this stretch.

I mean try and find 5 better regular seasons than Dirk in 2011. You realistically can't.

Yeah but did you consider that Durant led the league in scoring?

I did notice Kobe also on his list. I mean cmon what are we doing? He's complaining that players are only seen as top 5 because they won, yet he has Kobe on his list and the only defense of that is winning the title the previous two years. Credit to him for not including the actual MVP, Rose, but we've examined that year pretty closely on this board and outside of the Kobe guys, its generally been accepted Lebron, Dwight, and Dirk were the best players. And that includes the RS. Dirk was really really good and his team was really really good.

I suggest anyone who doubts this to go look at the 11 Mavs a lot closer and really examine the 9 games Dirk missed and the 2 first games back when he came back still clearly hurt trying to stem the tide. That team couldn't score at all without Dirk. Those offensive performances without him are just..... That's not to say he didn't have a great team around him. He absolutely did and all those players played their roles beautifully. But Dirk made it all go. All of it.

Wade?

[rk2023]

Yeah but did you consider that Durant led the league in scoring?

I did notice Kobe also on his list. I mean cmon what are we doing? He's complaining that players are only seen as top 5 because they won, yet he has Kobe on his list and the only defense of that is winning the title the previous two years. Credit to him for not including the actual MVP, Rose, but we've examined that year pretty closely on this board and outside of the Kobe guys, its generally been accepted Lebron, Dwight, and Dirk were the best players. And that includes the RS. Dirk was really really good and his team was really really good.

I suggest anyone who doubts this to go look at the 11 Mavs a lot closer and really examine the 9 games Dirk missed and the 2 first games back when he came back still clearly hurt trying to stem the tide. That team couldn't score at all without Dirk. Those offensive performances without him are just..... That's not to say he didn't have a great team around him. He absolutely did and all those players played their roles beautifully. But Dirk made it all go. All of it.

Wade?

I disagree with Chuck's point solely regarding Dwight, but I view Wade (and Kobe, at that) a tier below LBJ and Dirk when solely looking at the RS.

[Fundamentals21]

I really wonder if an Embiid build should look different after watching that game. Terrible choke from the 76ers.