So Jamal Murray goes for 50/11/7

[Marchesk]

Another 23 and under player putting up stats top 10 goats like Shaq never did in the playoffs. So, I don't know what to make of Luka's numbers, or really anyone int the modern game. It's hyper inflated, and the Bubble experiment is perfect for players being focused and peaked to play.

[NBAGOAT]

Just take bubble stats with an extreme grain of salt. Still you can’t only do that with just the top stats guys like Mitchell and lula. Kawhi putting up 33 or Giannis putting up 30 arent the standard 30-33 either.

Does make the laker defense seen insanely good now since they’ve shut down a good offensive team in por. Good sign for them

[AlternativeAcc.]

More offensive talent, better stats

Its that simple

The game has evolved past just 1 or 2 guys dominating statistically

The talent pool is ridiculously deep. Basketball isn't the only sport experiencing this phenomena either

When the money gets bigger, the stakes get higher, the talent comes. In business terms, we are looking at a saturated market opposed to the niche market it once was

[Bawkish]

More offensive talent, better stats

Its that simple

The game has evolved past just 1 or 2 guys dominating statistically

The talent pool is ridiculously deep. Basketball isn't the only sport experiencing this phenomena either

When the money gets bigger, the stakes get higher, the talent comes. In business terms, we are looking at a saturated market opposed to the niche market it once was

Just realized that Mitchell has more 50 pt games in the playoffs than Lebron :lol

[Marchesk]

Just realized that Mitchell has more 50 pt games in the playoffs than Lebron :lol

Does that mean Mitchell is now part of the Jordan fam?

[uber]

Does that mean Mitchell is now part of the Jordan fam?

According to Lebron stan logic that means Mitchell > Lebron

too easy

[Lebron23]

According to Lebron stan logic that means Mitchell > Lebron

too easy

21 years old LeBron would average 40 ppg in today's nba

[3ball]

More offensive talent, better stats

Its that simple

The game has evolved past just 1 or 2 guys dominating statistically

The talent pool is ridiculously deep. Basketball isn't the only sport experiencing this phenomena either

When the money gets bigger, the stakes get higher, the talent comes. In business terms, we are looking at a saturated market opposed to the niche market it once was

Bullshit

Spacing makes offense much easier... Period

So everyone is going off

Everyone went off in the 80's too but that's due to pace.. but now it's pace AND space... Otoh, the 90's had neither (no pace or space)

[Trollsmasher]

Bullshit

Spacing makes offense much easier... Period

So everyone is going off

Everyone went off in the 80's too but that's due to pace.. but now it's pace AND space... Otoh, the 90's had neither (no pace or space)

spacing is possible because of higher skill

[DMAVS41]

spacing is possible because of higher skill

It really isn't that players today are inherently better or more skilled. It is that teams finally realized that it was dumb to take so many long 2's and shrink the floor to become easier to guard.

So the offensive style of today is what is the biggest difference imo...teams cut out the bad shots in favor of better shots...and made themselves much more difficult to guard by spacing out the floor.

And, of course, the changes in defensive rules have made it harder to guard...it is clearly a combination of both...but not enough is made of offense evolving to a far more optimal strategy at the team level.

[STATUTORY]

we are either to believe that we live in the greatest era of offensive play of all time or that stats are inflated

[DMAVS41]

we are either to believe that we live in the greatest era of offensive play of all time or that stats are inflated

No...we should understand that offensive strategy has evolved to a far more optimal strategy AND that changes in defensive rules have made it harder to defend.

It is absolutely not an either / or situation.

I just randomly picked a game from the 98 Bulls box scores...the Bulls took 4 threes and didn't make one. The Hawks took 12 threes and made 4. These teams were often taking less threes than teams routinely make game in game out. It opens up the floor and gives you more points when you make.

We all agree that rules have made it easier on offense, but my god...can you people not understand how much harder it is to guard a team that takes 40 threes and spaces out the floor for star players? If you brought the 98 Bulls to the league right now...their defensive rating would absolutely get worse...even with the old rules...they would have a much tougher time guarding teams that actually take advantage of getting more points for shots and spacing out the floor.

[STATUTORY]

No...we should understand that offensive strategy has evolved to a far more optimal strategy AND that changes in defensive rules have made it harder to defend.

It is absolutely not an either / or situation.

I just randomly picked a game from the 98 Bulls box scores...the Bulls took 4 threes and didn't make one. The Hawks took 12 threes and made 4. These teams were often taking less threes than teams routinely make game in game out. It opens up the floor and gives you more points when you make.

We all agree that rules have made it easier on offense, but my god...can you people not understand how much harder it is to guard a team that takes 40 threes and spaces out the floor for star players? If you brought the 98 Bulls to the league right now...their defensive rating would absolutely get worse...even with the old rules...they would have a much tougher time guarding teams that actually take advantage of getting more points for shots and spacing out the floor.

you are explaining WHY stats are inflated, but you can't disagree that stats are inflated

what I mean is that if you take a 50 point scorer today, he's not as great RELATIVE to his competition as a 50 point scorer in the 90s. points are cheaper than ever. Whether that's due to rules or better strategy, the end result is the same: points are cheaper than ever. this needs to be taken into consideration when evaluating players across eras

[E_Stamkos]

It really isn't that players today are inherently better or more skilled. It is that teams finally realized that it was dumb to take so many long 2's and shrink the floor to become easier to guard.

So the offensive style of today is what is the biggest difference imo...teams cut out the bad shots in favor of better shots...and made themselves much more difficult to guard by spacing out the floor.

And, of course, the changes in defensive rules have made it harder to guard...it is clearly a combination of both...but not enough is made of offense evolving to a far more optimal strategy at the team level.

Quality post

[k0kakw0rld]

Another 23 and under player putting up stats top 10 goats like Shaq never did in the playoffs. So, I don't know what to make of Luka's numbers, or really anyone int the modern game. It's hyper inflated, and the Bubble experiment is perfect for players being focused and peaked to play.
Shut the **** up bro.

Luka is 21 years old. Playing in his first NBA playoff series. What's more impressive, is that he said himself that the NBA was going to be easy. Guess what he's doing proving the world right!

[Marchesk]

Shut the **** up bro.

Luka is 21 years old. Playing in his first NBA playoff series. What's more impressive, is that he said himself that the NBA was going to be easy. Guess what he's doing proving the world right!

You shut the eff up brah.

You think 21 year old Luka > Peak Finals Shaq?

[DMAVS41]

you are explaining WHY stats are inflated, but you can't disagree that stats are inflated

what I mean is that if you take a 50 point scorer today, he's not as great RELATIVE to his competition as a 50 point scorer in the 90s. points are cheaper than ever. Whether that's due to rules or better strategy, the end result is the same: points are cheaper than ever. this needs to be taken into consideration when evaluating players across eras

Well, I'm not arguing that stats aren't "inflated"...everyone already agrees with this.

I'm arguing against the notion that it is all about how terrible the defense is now...which is what this tends to be about.

In terms of comparing stats across eras...it has always been really hard and it is best to compare players against their peers in their era.

[FKAri]

It really isn't that players today are inherently better or more skilled. It is that teams finally realized that it was dumb to take so many long 2's and shrink the floor to become easier to guard.

So the offensive style of today is what is the biggest difference imo...teams cut out the bad shots in favor of better shots...and made themselves much more difficult to guard by spacing out the floor.

And, of course, the changes in defensive rules have made it harder to guard...it is clearly a combination of both...but not enough is made of offense evolving to a far more optimal strategy at the team level.

Completely agree. Though players today are more skilled in this new style since they've been drafted based on their ability to play as well as trained for this style. Of course flip the rules and turn it into 80's ball and a whole bunch of the league is going to get Okafor'd and Hibbert'ed out of the league over night.

[tpols]

Bullshit

Spacing makes offense much easier... Period

So everyone is going off

Everyone went off in the 80's too but that's due to pace.. but now it's pace AND space... Otoh, the 90's had neither (no pace or space)

That's the evolution of the game.

Turns out, being able to shoot is extremely important in the game of basketball... shocker! Particularly if your role players can hit from long range since the spacing will unlock max efficiency from both the star (easier to score in every way ie Kawhi ~ midrange, Harden ~ 3 pt, Giannis ~ rim, etc.) and the role players (eFG on 3 pt shooting from role players blow out the water eFG of old school types who favored long 2 pointers)

You are witnessing the evolution of basketball mate. Even the triangle that your beloved MJ could only win with relied on the premise of SPACING.

Imagine that....

[tpols]

You shut the eff up brah.

You think 21 year old Luka > Peak Finals Shaq?

Yes he is better than Shaq who beat up on cans in the Finals. Way less holes in his game and a much better leader and winner.

[StrongLurk]

Honestly the bubble is just one major asterisk.

Defense is almost impossible due to offensive strategies, players ability to shoot/stretch the floor, ridiculously bad reffing with too many fake fouls, rule changes over the last 30 years to lower physicality on the perimeter...then you add the bubble where there is no pressure due to lack of fans/travel and a "gym" setting, zero chemistry on defense due to the stoppage of the season for almost 5 months.

[tpols]

Honestly the bubble is just one major asterisk.

Defense is almost impossible due to offensive strategies, players ability to shoot/stretch the floor, ridiculously bad reffing with too many fake fouls, rule changes over the last 30 years to lower physicality on the perimeter...then you add the bubble where there is no pressure due to lack of fans/travel and a "gym" setting, zero chemistry on defense due to the stoppage of the season for almost 5 months.


Thats how it was without the bubble. Dallas set the all time record for best offense this year when they played in stadiums filled with people.

Teams also shoot LESS FTs than they did in previous eras. There's less watching people at the foul line today.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yes he is better than Shaq who beat up on cans in the Finals. Way less holes in his game and a much better leader and winner.

lol

So do most elite perimeter players. You got them over Shaq too, right?

[Phoenix]

Yes he is better than Shaq who beat up on cans in the Finals. Way less holes in his game and a much better leader and winner.

Jesus.

[r0drig0lac]

Honestly the bubble is just one major asterisk.

Defense is almost impossible due to illegal screens

fixed

[Marchesk]

Yes he is better than Shaq who beat up on cans in the Finals. Way less holes in his game and a much better leader and winner.

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/67520966.jpg

[tpols]

I would take Luka for the same reason I'd take Bird. They're both just better at team basketball, plus much better leaders. Shaq had awful intangibles ~ beefed with everybody, dogged it in practice, team hopped incessantly with top perimeter talent.. penny -> kobe -> wade -> nash -> lebron -> pierce/ray.. so he could generally only win with ready made super talent where as Luka and Bird can actually make you an organic, homegrown dynasty.

[Phoenix]

so he could generally only win with ready made super talent where as Luka and Bird can actually make you an organic, homegrown dynasty.

Luka hasn't made anything yet. Which is not to say he won't, and I'm personally rooting for him..... but maybe we should let the guy.... I don't know....do it first?

[Gohan]

These players putting up 50 point games like they are Iverson

[Roundball_Rock]

Yes he is better than Shaq who beat up on cans in the Finals.

https://media.giphy.com/media/d3YHKs8wwYfce0PS/giphy.gif

[Gray GOAT]

I would take Luka for the same reason I'd take Bird. They're both just better at team basketball, plus much better leaders. Shaq had awful intangibles ~ beefed with everybody, dogged it in practice, team hopped incessantly with top perimeter talent.. penny -> kobe -> wade -> nash -> lebron -> pierce/ray.. so he could generally only win with ready made super talent where as Luka and Bird can actually make you an organic, homegrown dynasty.

Cool, so you made a retarded statement (what else is new) and doubled down with an even more retarded statement.

[Lebron23]

https://media.giphy.com/media/d3YHKs8wwYfce0PS/giphy.gif

Tpols went full retard in that posts.

[Phoenix]

https://media.giphy.com/media/d3YHKs8wwYfce0PS/giphy.gif

Lol. Tpols comes off as a straight shooter unless the topic is Shaq, Kobe, or Reggie. Then sit back and watch the nuclear takes.

[Marchesk]

If Shaq wasn't salty before, wait till he hears some people are saying 21 year old Luka is better than his peak finals. Reminds me of that time in the studio when they were talking about the most dominant Lakers. Kobe, Magic and Kareem came up. Shaq got mad and said it was Wilt then himself. They kept going on about Kobe and Magic, so Shaq said they must have a different definition of "dominant".

[insidious301]

Yes he is better than Shaq

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/MildFoolishBackswimmer-size_restricted.gif

[Smoke117]

Yes he is better than Shaq who beat up on cans in the Finals. Way less holes in his game and a much better :facepalmleader and winner.

:biggums: :facepalm

[ImKobe]

Yes he is better than Shaq who beat up on cans in the Finals. Way less holes in his game and a much better leader and winner.

Too early to tell on this one, I'd say he has a higher ceiling than Shaq due to his skillset and the era he's in.

[tpols]

If Shaq wasn't salty before, wait till he hears some people are saying 21 year old Luka is better than his peak finals. Reminds me of that time in the studio when they were talking about the most dominant Lakers. Kobe, Magic and Kareem came up. Shaq got mad and said it was Wilt then himself. They kept going on about Kobe and Magic, so Shaq said they must have a different definition of "dominant".

Well they were right on that too. Magic, Kobe and Kareem are better than Shaq as well. IQ & Skill will always outpace brute strength at the championship level. Thats why Kobe, Magic and Kareem all won more while not having to team hop with extremely stacked help over and over. Hell Kobe did more with Pau than Shaq could do with Penny and Wade.... and he gets shit for playing with Gasol. :lol

[Nashty]

I can see him average this for a season in the 90s playing against plumbers and dish washers.

[Marchesk]

Too early to tell on this one, I'd say he has a higher ceiling than Shaq due to his skillset and the era he's in.

I seem to remember ISH having peak Shaq as the highest ever, with the possible exception of MJ.

[ImKobe]

I seem to remember ISH having peak Shaq as the highest ever, with the possible exception of MJ.

Statistically, early 2000s Shaq had incredible numbers in the Finals, but obviously the competition in those Finals wasn't really up to par (their toughest competition was out West), you could argue the Shaq/Kobe Lakers had the easiest Finals opponents out of any dynasty.

Luka's playing for the right organization and under the right coach, I don't see how he doesn't have the potential to have one of the GOAT peaks statistically while also playing winning basketball. He's almost like the NBA-equivalent of Patrick Mahomes right now with how much hype he's getting, needs to have Playoff success to be compared to any ATGs.

[NBAGOAT]

I think things will cool off in a year or two. Ortg was at 108.5 in 09 then dropped off for a few years with no big rule changes besides the rip through not being automatic free throws.

Teams are figuring out what works better right now vs the screen and roll which is the most crucial play on offense with variations like screens for the screener.

[Phoenix]

Statistically, early 2000s Shaq had incredible numbers in the Finals, but obviously the competition in those Finals wasn't really up to par (their toughest competition was out West), you could argue the Shaq/Kobe Lakers had the easiest Finals opponents out of any dynasty.

Luka's playing for the right organization and under the right coach, I don't see how he doesn't have the potential to have one of the GOAT peaks statistically while also playing winning basketball. He's almost like the NBA-equivalent of Patrick Mahomes right now with how much hype he's getting, needs to have Playoff success to be compared to any ATGs.

This era is going to produce alot of 'GOAT stat peaks' but I don't think that proves much with the explosion of numbers across the board. Basketball fans are going to have to evolve past 'look at the stats!' when comparing players, or just draw a line and say there's no way to objectively compare someone like Luka with, say, Bird. Trae Young may drop 30/9 for the next decade but doesn't mean he peaked higher than CP3. It was a lot easier around 2000 to come up with a top 25 or top 30 lisy but now that we've got 70 years of history behind us, there's alot of separation between 60's and 80's, 80's and 2000's, 2000s and now. How Oscar does in 2000 or Luke does in 95 or Shaq does today are becoming increasingly futile arguments. The league is adapting to place value on certain skills and it's not really doing much of a service to how past players are being viewed going forward.

[NBAGOAT]

This era is going to produce alot of 'GOAT stat peaks' but I don't think that proves much with the explosion of numbers across the board. Basketball fans are going to have to evolve past 'look at the stats!' when comparing players, or just draw a line and say there's no way to objectively compare someone like Luka with, say, Bird. Trae Young may drop 30/9 for the next decade but doesn't mean he peaked higher than CP3. It was a lot easier around 2000 to come up with a top 25 or top 30 lisy but now that we've got 70 years of history behind us, there's alot of separation between 60's and 80's, 80's and 2000's, 2000s and now. How Oscar does in 2000 or Luke does in 95 or Shaq does today are becoming increasingly futile arguments. The league is adapting to place value on certain skills and it's not really doing much of a service to how past players are being viewed going forward.

Stats that adjust for league average are still pretty useful. Efficiency is easy to do but volume is kind of hard. Volume is often heavily due to circumstances so I’m ok with that. Trae may never put up 30 again because his team will be better. If Beal was on the nets, likely wouldn’t even score 25.

We’ll also always have impact stats which aren’t too box score heavy and always adjust for league average

[Phoenix]

Stats that adjust for league average are still pretty useful. Efficiency is easy to do but volume is kind of hard. Volume is often heavily due to circumstances so I’m ok with that. Trae may never put up 30 again because his team will be better. If Beal was on the nets, likely wouldn’t even score 25.

We’ll also always have impact stats which aren’t too box score heavy and always adjust for league average

It's the rule changes that make comparing stats hard. 30ppg in 2002 and 2020 mean different things in terms of the environments they're achieved in. I mean someone like Donovan Mitchell, who's still a few years away from his prime, is dropping 50 twice in one playoff series. Great young player, but are we to believe he's ascended to some higher scoring plane in the last week over your prior GOAT scorers?

[DMAVS41]

It's the rule changes that make comparing stats hard. 30ppg in 2002 and 2020 mean different things in terms of the environments they're achieved in. I mean someone like Donovan Mitchell, who's still a few years away from his prime, is dropping 50 twice in one playoff series. Great young player, but are we to believe he's ascended to some higher scoring plane in the last week over your prior GOAT scorers?

No, you compare his performances to his peers in the era he's playing in...which has always been the best way to evaluate play.

While at the same time understanding that the rules changes make it easier now and evolved offensive strategy would produce better results regardless of the rules.

We also have to be careful not giving players credit for being great. When Nash dropped 48 on the Mavericks the year after we let him go...it was clearly much easier for him to do that in 05 after the rules changed, but it doesn't change the fact that he played great.

[NBAGOAT]

It's the rule changes that make comparing stats hard. 30ppg in 2002 and 2020 mean different things in terms of the environments they're achieved in. I mean someone like Donovan Mitchell, who's still a few years away from his prime, is dropping 50 twice in one playoff series. Great young player, but are we to believe he's ascended to some higher scoring plane in the last week over your prior GOAT scorers?

for 4 games a lot of weird things can happen. It's not unreasonable Mitchell is likely outplaying anyone in the league so far in the playoffs. Kawhi, Luka, Giannis, Harden etc even adjusting for den's defense being awful. so if he's outplaying all those guys who are playing in the same conditions, why not give him some credit?

As dmavs said, I think you're a bit blind if you dont see that offensive strategy has evolved a bit in 18 years and defensive strategy has too. drop pnr coverage wasnt a thing even 10 years ago because what kind of good defense gives up an open shot to a guard so often. Turns out on average it's pretty effective and why den has stuck with it for four games though mitchell has burned them. tbf in 2040, the strategy right now will seem outdated too.

[Phoenix]

No, you compare his performances to his peers in the era he's playing in...which has always been the best way to evaluate play.

While at the same time understanding that the rules changes make it easier now and evolved offensive strategy would produce better results regardless of the rules.

We also have to be careful not giving players credit for being great. When Nash dropped 48 on the Mavericks the year after we let him go...it was clearly much easier for him to do that in 05 after the rules changed, but it doesn't change the fact that he played great.

Which is what I tend to do anyway for the most part ( and said as much in another thread today and hinted to above as far as drawing a line). I've gotten less into trying to compare players separated by 20-30 years and measure by who's in front of them. Fairest way to do it.

Problem is when you get guys rolling in with 'he's better than Shaq' hot takes. I'm enjoying the emergence of a new star, and feel no urge to declare that in 2 years he's already better than guys with legacies in stone before he's won a playoff series. It's fun to speculate but that's really all we can do right now.

[Phoenix]

for 4 games a lot of weird things can happen. It's not unreasonable Mitchell is likely outplaying anyone in the league so far in the playoffs. Kawhi, Luka, Giannis, Harden etc even adjusting for den's defense being awful. so if he's outplaying all those guys who are playing in the same conditions, why not give him some credit?

As dmavs said, I think you're a bit blind if you dont see that offensive strategy has evolved a bit in 18 years and defensive strategy has too. drop pnr coverage wasnt a thing even 10 years ago because what kind of good defense gives up an open shot to a guard so often. Turns out on average it's pretty effective and why den has stuck with it for four games though mitchell has burned them. tbf in 2040, the strategy right now will seem outdated too.

I'm not discrediting Mitchell in the least. Like you said everyone is playing under the same conditions. I'm just saying that there is a tendency to equate things like this with 'the players are better today' and I don't think it's that simple. Player skillsets in every era are built to best leverage the rules of that era. No doubt offense has evolved but I haven't argued against that idea. I'm just saying all the numbers need the proper context.

[DMAVS41]

I'm not discrediting Mitchell in the least. Like you said everyone is playing under the same conditions. I'm just saying that there is a tendency to equate things like this with 'the players are better today' and I don't think it's that simple. Player skillsets in every era are built to best leverage the rules of that era. No doubt offense has evolved but I haven't argued against that idea. I'm just saying all the numbers need the proper context.

Right. I don't get into the "players are better today"...stuff

What I think is fair to say is that players taking more 3's instead of long 2's is objectively better offense not only because of the EV of those shots, but because it makes the team as a whole harder to defend.

[Phoenix]

Right. I don't get into the "players are better today"...stuff

What I think is fair to say is that players taking more 3's instead of long 2's is objectively better offense not only because of the EV of those shots, but because it makes the team as a whole harder to defend.

Yes I agree with that take. I can't say I enjoy the style of play as much but that has the markings of 'old man shouting at the clouds' and it's certainly not my call for what constitutes basketball. It continues to evolve for better or worse.

[NBAGOAT]

I'm not discrediting Mitchell in the least. Like you said everyone is playing under the same conditions. I'm just saying that there is a tendency to equate things like this with 'the players are better today' and I don't think it's that simple. Player skillsets in every era are built to best leverage the rules of that era. No doubt offense has evolved but I haven't argued against that idea. I'm just saying all the numbers need the proper context.

oh yea i'm not the one saying luka>peak shaq or mitchell>kobe. Still there are stats that adjust fairly well. efficiency is easy to adjust for by year and basketball reference already does so. For volume it's more iffy but you can take average pts per 100 for league for guys who says play >20-25m and do that for every year. so if a guy puts up 35 per 100 and average is 20 he score 15 more than average.

Thing is some guys will not adjust the other ways in comparisons. Oscar west put up like 56ts% which seems just good. Volume was inflated for them but in their really inefficient eras, they're likely even more efficient than jordan. kareem has curry lvl efficiency in the early 70s

[Phoenix]

oh yea i'm not the one saying luka>peak shaq or mitchell>kobe. Still there are stats that adjust fairly well. efficiency is easy to adjust for by year and basketball reference already does so. For volume it's more iffy but you can take average pts per 100 for league for guys who says play >20-25m and do that for every year. so if a guy puts up 35 per 100 and average is 20 he score 15 more than average.

Thing is some guys will not adjust the other ways in comparisons. Oscar west put up like 56ts% which seems just good. Volume was inflated for them but in their really inefficient eras, they're likely even more efficient than jordan. kareem has curry lvl efficiency in the early 70s

Yeah I know it's not you, I'm familiar with your posts enough to know you're more nuanced lol. I don't have a real point of contention with your core thoughts.

[Whoah10115]

Yes he is better than Shaq who beat up on cans in the Finals. Way less holes in his game and a much better leader and winner.


Maybe let's wait just a year or two or 5 or something.

[GimmeThat]

well, it's the first round of playoffs, and the agenda of USG% equates to points scored is being equated to star powers and upsets, creating free throw discrepancy allowing opposing benches to thrive

[bullettooth]

21 years old LeBron would average 40 ppg in today's nba

.....:lol