421 vs 632 vs. 'value'

[elementally morale]

It's the games played in the NBA up until now by Embiid vs. Jokic.

I started to take a look because of MVP eligibility this year, and Embiid is on a 60 games played / to be played trajectory now. It is low, but nothing out of the ordinary for him. He played more than 65 games only twice. The fewest Jokic played in a season was 69 last year but he is usually in the mid 70s and he had 80 game seasons twice. This year he is on pace to play 80. Probably won't do that but it is likely to be 75+.

If you are not playing, you cannot be too valuable for that game. 632 is 50% more than 421. That's a lot. I know Jokic played one more season but if you do the averages it's still a big difference. (Giannis played more than 65 games only once in the last 4 years but this year he is on pace to play 80, which he probably won't do. He will most likely be comfortably north of 70 though.)

When I think of 'most valuable', being on the court is a huge factor. Just as you cannot be a great playoff performer if you miss the playoffs (you could be, but it remains a hypothetical), you cannot be very valuable in the regular season if you are not on the court for 25% of the games.

[iamgine]

Value depends on how you look at it. i.e Haliburton is worse than Jokic but he's paid $6M this season compared to Jokic's $47M. From that perspective, Haliburton's a lot more valuable than Jokic.

[elementally morale]

Value depends on how you look at it. i.e Haliburton is worse than Jokic but he's paid $6M this season compared to Jokic's $47M. From that perspective, Haliburton's a lot more valuable than Jokic.

Yes. But it won't last very long, Haliburton will get paid. If we involve money we will arrive at 'relative value'. So for example the cheapest point and rebound per game is most likely Wembanyama. I was talking of absolute value.

[Real Men Wear Green]

It's important for deciding who is the regular season mvp or AllNBA. It's not nearly as important when discussing overall value so long as the guy isn't missing so many games the team misses the playoffs or misses playoff series. That's what tanks the value of Kawhi Leonard while Jimmy Butler is still valuable overall even though he misses a lot of games.

[iamgine]

Yes. But it won't last very long, Haliburton will get paid. If we involve money we will arrive at 'relative value'. So for example the cheapest point and rebound per game is most likely Wembanyama. I was talking of absolute value.

But he hasn't get paid. So his value from that perspective is absolute for this season.

There's also no guarantee Jokic playing 75+ games this season or next season. He could be, but it remains a hypothetical.

[Real Men Wear Green]

But he hasn't get paid. So his value from that perspective is absolute for this season.

There's also no guarantee Jokic playing 75+ games this season or next season. He could be, but it remains a hypothetical.

The discussion is supposed to be about how much value a player brings to winning and losing without getting into the GM's cap concerns. A bunch of Allstars still on their rookie deals would be great for cap management but that's kind of obvious and doesn't seem to be the point of the thread.

[elementally morale]

But he hasn't get paid. So his value from that perspective is absolute for this season.

There's also no guarantee Jokic playing 75+ games this season or next season. He could be, but it remains a hypothetical.

No. It is still relative if you include his salary. Absolute is what you do. It gets relative when someone asks for a price. (You arrive at the relative production when you divide with salary.)

[elementally morale]

It's important for deciding who is the regular season mvp or AllNBA. It's not nearly as important when discussing overall value so long as the guy isn't missing so many games the team misses the playoffs or misses playoff series. That's what tanks the value of Kawhi Leonard while Jimmy Butler is still valuable overall even though he misses a lot of games.

I agree. I had regular season MVP in mind. The goal is to get to the playoffs AND secure home court advantage for as long as you can. And if you play only 70% of the time, it is hard to make up for the games you've missed. To be as valuable as another star playing 90% of his games, it should be an automatic win for you to keep up your impact. Which isn't happening very often, if ever. (Shaq is the only example when it was really really close for 2-3 years.)

[iamgine]

No. It is still relative if you include his salary. Absolute is what you do. It gets relative when someone asks for a price. (You arrive at the relative production when you divide with salary.)

In that case games played is also relative value. We could easily say Donovan Mitchell playing 82 games is MVP over Jokic if Jokic only plays 65 or even 70 games.

[elementally morale]

In that case games played is also relative value. We could easily say Donovan Mitchell playing 82 games is MVP over Jokic if Jokic only plays 65 or even 70 games.

Yes. That's the point. (Games played is the absolute value as is total impact. Impact per game is the first derivative, salary included is the 2nd.)