Premise

This year, I was curious if a player’s box scores, his team’s record, and miscellaneous factors could accurately predict how likely he is to win the MVP. Wielding the results from past award voting—supplied by Basketball-Reference—I got around to establishing patterns among these types of indicators to forecast who’s most likely to win the regular season’s most prestigious award.

Voting considerations

• Player value: This should be obvious—the building block of MVP voting. If there’s no indication you’re providing a high degree of value, you’re not in the running for the Most Valuable Player.
• Team strength: Some voters have argued from the perspective that if you’re not contributing to winning basketball—in other words, if your team is low-seeded or doesn’t look like a contender—you don’t have a good case for MVP. There are more than enough anecdotes and testimonials through the years to support the idea that team record is a relevant factor.
• Team weakness: Conversely, there are situations in which players are credited when playing with poorer teammates. I’d say it’s likely the ideal MVP in the minds of voters is able to carry teams to extreme heights without another All-Star teammate, thus reducing the error in assuming he’s an incredibly valuable player. Think of Stephen Curry and Kevin Durant in 2017. Both of them could’ve easily been called MVP-caliber players on clearly the best team in the league (67 wins), but received 5.1% and 0.2% of shares, respectively.
• Historicity: Russell Westbrook’s triple-double averages were a major factor in his winning the 2017 MVP. He proceeded to do the feat an extra two times before being traded to Houston; and yet, he wasn’t an MVP candidate in those seasons. Westbrook earned 88% of voting shares in the 2017 race, a (comparatively) measly 7.5% in the 2018 race, and a negligible 0.8% in 2019! What does this suggest? The rarity of certain events and/or statistical achievements are factors at least somewhat independent of the achievements themselves.
• Voter fatigue: Part of the spirit of the award—as an outsider observing voter tendencies—is not to simply reward the best players in each season. Otherwise, players like LeBron James and Michael Jordan might’ve racked up even more than they already have. It’s a little more interesting to see new faces and names at the tops of ballots, and makes for interesting story-telling when discussing the legacies of these players.

Modeling factors

There are obviously real factors in MVP voting that can’t be quantified. This year, Ja Morant is sixth in these projections despite it being unclear whether he’ll make an All-NBA team. Historicity and voter fatigue—while quantifiable and thus potentially relevant factors in the modeling process—were tested in the construction of this model and were concluded to be insignificant predictors in relation to the other variables. (When it doubt, went with simplicity.) But otherwise, a player’s MVP likelihood was estimated with the following:

• Box scores: While raw box scores probably account for more of how voters intuit the process, adjustments were made based on how common each statistic was in a season. (This is analogous to “inflation-adjusted” statistics.)
• Team record: This biases the results toward players on winning teams in such a way that predicts MVP likelihood with more accuracy than if it weren’t included.
• Yearly adjustment: Because season strength varies, a player’s likelihood is adjusted based on who the other strong candidates are in a given season.

Historical accuracy

Season	Pred. Winner (Actual Rank)	Actual Winner (Pred. Rank)
2021-22	Nikola Jokic (1)	Nikola Jokic (1)
2020-21	Nikola Jokic (1)	Nikola Jokic (1)
2019-20	Giannis Antetokounmpo (1)	Giannis Antetokounmpo (1)
2018-19	James Harden (2)	Giannis Antetokounmpo (2)
2017-18	James Harden (1)	James Harden (1)
2016-17	Russell Westbrook (1)	Russell Westbrook (1)
2015-16	Stephen Curry (1)	Stephen Curry (1)
2014-15	Stephen Curry (1)	Stephen Curry (1)
2013-14	Kevin Durant (1)	Kevin Durant (1)
2012-13	LeBron James (1)	LeBron James (1)
2011-12	LeBron James (1)	LeBron James (1)
2010-11	LeBron James (3)	Derrick Rose (2)
2009-10	LeBron James (1)	LeBron James (1)
2008-09	LeBron James (1)	LeBron James (1)
2007-08	LeBron James (4)	Kobe Bryant (4)
2006-07	Dirk Nowitzki (1)	Dirk Nowitzki (1)
2005-06	LeBron James (2)	Steve Nash (10)
2004-05	Tim Duncan (4)	Steve Nash (11)
2003-04	Kevin Garnett (1)	Kevin Garnett (1)
2002-03	Tim Duncan (1)	Tim Duncan (1)
2001-02	Tim Duncan (1)	Tim Duncan (1)
2000-01	Shaquille O’Neal (3)	Allen Iverson (2)
1999-00	Shaquille O’Neal (1)	Shaquille O’Neal (1)
1998-99	Karl Malone (1)	Karl Malone (1)
1997-98	Shaquille O’Neal (4)	Michael Jordan (3)
1996-97	Michael Jordan (2)	Karl Malone (2)
1995-96	Michael Jordan (1)	Michael Jordan (1)
1994-95	David Robinson (1)	David Robinson (1)
1993-94	David Robinson (2)	Hakeem Olajuwon (2)
1992-93	Michael Jordan (3)	Charles Barkley (2)
1991-92	Michael Jordan (1)	Michael Jordan (1)
1990-91	Michael Jordan (1)	Michael Jordan (1)
1989-90	Michael Jordan (3)	Magic Johnson (2)
1988-89	Michael Jordan (2)	Magic Johnson (2)
1987-88	Larry Bird (2)	Michael Jordan (2)
1986-87	Magic Johnson (1)	Magic Johnson (1)
1985-86	Larry Bird (1)	Larry Bird (1)
1984-85	Larry Bird (1)	Larry Bird (1)
1983-84	Larry Bird (1)	Larry Bird (1)
1982-83	Moses Malone (1)	Moses Malone (1)
1981-82	Moses Malone (1)	Moses Malone (1)
1980-81	Julius Erving (1)	Julius Erving (1)
1979-80	Julius Erving (2)	Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (2)
1978-79	Moses Malone (1)	Moses Malone (1)
1977-78	Bill Walton (1)	Bill Walton (1)

The model is right more often than it is wrong, correctly predicting 31 of the last 45 MVPs; and 96% of who the model predicts to win have at least been finalists. For the most part, there doesn’t seem to be a relationship between the year and the model’s accuracy, suggesting that these factors have been similarly relevant across time. The box score—as a traditional, unchanging snapshot of player tendencies, despite the analytics movement—has not lost popularity in higher circles. Team record and winning has always been important. 

Looking through the past results, the only player to really “break” the model was Steve Nash in the mid-naughts. Not only are his MVPs some of the most controversial to date—with opposers citing the heroic efforts of Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan in these seasons—but Nash is reputed as a player whose skills and value are impossible to capture in the box score. Otherwise, every MVP winner since 1978 has been projected to finish in the top-4, which means one of this season’s group of Giannis Antetokounmpo, Luka Doncic, Joel Embiid, and Nikola Jokic is highly likely to snag the trophy this spring!

While the NBA’s MVP has no criteria (and I guess this is a good thing), there’s definitely a set of underlying themes that circulate the ballots every season. There are countless examples from which to draw online. You’ve got those who prefer “the best player on the best team.” Some treat the premise of “value” literally, and support the player with the largest effect on his team’s win percentage. There’s even an originality component every once in a while. This post quotes an NBA.com staff member stating his support for Russell Westbrook as the 2017 MVP for the sole reason that he’d never seen a player average a triple-double before. This means a lot of contradicting opinions are represented in the voting results (and I guess this is also a good thing), which speaks volumes to the historicity of Nikola Jokic’s current run.

Jokic is on pace to three-peat

Regardless of your opinion, the safest bet to win the MVP right now is Nikola Jokic. Every major sportsbook has his odds in the -310 to -375 range, with the next-best odds belonging to Joel Embiid via Caesars Sportsbook at +375. Polls drawn from current and past voters all seem to be overwhelmingly in Jokic’s favor. While we’ve had not-so-competitive MVP races in recent memory (Stephen Curry in 2016 and Giannis Antetokounmpo in 2020), Jokic stands out as having narrowed out the competition in the previous two seasons; and as historical fans know, voter fatigue is a real thing. People don’t want to see the same player win the award over and over again. Refreshment is, well… refreshing!

What else should be working against Jokic’s favor? He’s not a traditionally aesthetic athlete. Most of his prowess on the court is cerebral and decision-making. He’s a slow-footed, nonchalant-looking, formerly-chunky, foreign big man in an era that’s empowered the shot-creating guard and point forward unlike any point in NBA history. Like I said, to put this into a historical perspective is seriously mind-numbing. I almost forgot the league-wide consensus that the talent pool is supposedly the most top-heavy in… ever? What’s going on!

Jokic is the best player on the best team

I just lied to you, because technically, that’s not true. While you can take “liberty” with what best means, no one’s going to dismiss the idea that the best team has the highest winning percentage. That’s the Milwaukee Bucks at the time I’m writing this. So far all the ‘best player on the best team” proponents out there, get ready to rally for the Greek Freak’s third MVP in five years. If you’re a sucker for things like point differential (which are likely better indicators of team quality but arguably extend beyond the scope of the MVP), Donovan Mitchell could reasonably be your pick. And if you’re banking on a few decimals swaying one way or the other, Jayson Tatum could snag that title by the end of the year. 

The Nuggets are certainly very good, and arguably the best team in their conference. (Memphis edges them out in point differential.) But not definitively by any measure. So why am I saying Jokic is the best player on the best team? Let’s reframe what it means to be on the best team for a second. (Trigger warning: I am about to emphasize the Player in Most Valuable Player.) People who say team record or point differential shouldn’t be factored into an individual award have a point, because those top-line measures are the products of supporting casts, coaches, other staff members, travel schedules, and then maybe the star has a share in there. So instead of looking at overall team efficacy, how about team efficacy only when each player is on the floor?¹

Player	Team Net	On-Court Net
Nikola Jokic	4.4	13.6
Joel Embiid	3.7	9.0
Jayson Tatum	5.7	8.3
Giannis Antetokounmpo	3.8	7.0

W-O-W!!! While I won’t concede this as a catch-all remedy to contextualizing team record, Jokic is doing laps around the other candidates! For a little extra flavor in there, consider that Jokic is also leading the NBA in on-off differential (+24.4 per 100). The next-best player on any team that’s not the Nuggets (avoid collinearity) is Jaren Jackson Jr., who barely has half (+12.8) of what Jokic’s differential is! Again, this isn’t meant to end any conversation, rather spice it up a little bit. But when you look at winning from this perspective, it’s hard to argue that one name and one name alone doesn’t absolutely pop of the page!

Jokic is the darling of analytics darlings

Every year, it seems like Jokic’s BPM, his EPM, his RAPTOR, and his (insert acronym here) jumps to yet another unconceivable level. I’ve said many times before, as someone who’s studied these metrics with some intensity, that they do a fairly-good job at ballparking value for the vast majority of players. While acknowledging their imperfections, discussing modeling biases and techniques, and working through the analytics analytically is wonderful for evaluating players, that’s not the purpose of the MVP. Let’s straight-up compare Jokic’s ranks among the other MVP candidates.²

Player	BPM Rank	LEBRON Rank	RAPTOR Rank
Nikola Jokic	1	3	1
Joel Embiid	4	4	4
Jayson Tatum	10	5	11
Giannis Antetokounmpo	14	2	14

Wait, hold on… Jokic is third in LEBRON? That doesn’t sound right… If that’s what you’re thinking, you’re right! While all the other ranks are among all players this season, Jokic’s ranks are among all player-seasons in history! While LEBRON and RAPTOR are hybrid metrics that (in full form) only have a decade’s worth of information, BPM goes all the way back to the shot clock (1955)! While this isn’t necessarily to say he’s definitively having the greatest regular season ever, let’s take some time to let those numbers simmer in our heads.

What doesn’t count in the MVP

There are exactly two points that have been made historically in MVP talks that I want to address, because they explicitly violate the premise of the MVP, not because I think they’re fallacious or illogical. So if you’re an Embiid or Tatum stan who’d like to white-knight on their behalf in the comments, I recommend checking back to the next two bullet points for a guide on which criteria I consider irrevocably irrelevant:

• Playoff translation: Bam Adebayo was recently quoted for saying Rudy Gobert shouldn’t have won DPOY because his game didn’t work well in the Playoffs. This is irrelevant. The MVP is a regular-season award, blah blah blah… But seriously! Take it seriously if you care enough to rip people in the comments!
• Voter fatigue: Here’s one way to think about voter fatigue. By not choosing a player because they’d previous won the award, you are by definition taking previous seasons into account. The MVP (and all awards like it) are exclusive to the one regular season. (For example, the upcoming 2023 MVP will only be considering the 2022-23 regular season.)

With that all said, those are the main points I wanted to hit to try to explain the historicity of Nikola Jokic’s run for his third consecutive MVP, and it’s looking like it’s going to happen! I’d love to talk about it in the comments with people who disagree (or people who agree who have other points not referenced in this post), so have a go at it!

Analytics are imperfect, and we’re all aware of it. Proponents refer to them as ballparking measurements. I’ve used the “one size fits all” sock as an analogy, in which certain metrics tend to “fit” players better or worse depending on things like playstyle and modeling techniques. For my money, they’re pretty decent estimates of player value—good to fill in gaps that our eyes miss when we watch games. The other thing I really like analytics—and specifically impact metrics—for is understanding which types of players provide the most value. Basketball isn’t a clear-cut game. Binary outcomes are fueled by fluid process. We don’t always know where to assign credit. Impact metrics help us fill in those gaps.

The Goal

How can we use impact metrics to identify valuable skills and traits? That’s what I’m setting out to learn in this post. To do so, and for the sake of simplicity, I’m consulting the LEBRON metric. (Read LEBRON primer here.) It’s no exception from the myriad of alphabet soup we see in the analytics community today. LEBRON is a catch-all metric that blends statistics and spits out a one-number player rating. The ingredients of LEBRON, which were the focuses of its appeal, are:

• • Traditional counting stats: The box score—points, rebounds, assists, etc. LEBRON adjusts a player’s box score based on how early in the season it is to avoid jumping the gun on streaky performances. (Read about LEBRON’s padding technique here.) The drawbacks include playstyle bias and incomplete tracking.
  • Plus-minus: The top-down approach to analyzing players statistically. This is unbiased toward playstyles and only cares about the scoreboard. The drawbacks include sensitivity to team circumstance and sample size.

LEBRON has one of the nicest mixtures of statistics as inputs, drawing from the two major types (bottom-up and top-down) of statistics. The other appeal to LEBRON comes with its provider, BBall-Index, which has wonderfully supplemented its LEBRON database with models for “offensive archetype” and “defensive role.” [1] (Read primers on Offensive Archetypes and Defensive Roles here, here.) Here are examples of today’s stars and how they’re categorized:

• • Stephen Curry: Primary Ball-Handler (offense), Low Activity (defense)
  • Kevin Durant: Shot Creator (offense), Helper (defense)
  • Nikola Jokic: Post Scorer (offense), Anchor Big (defense)

These archetypes and roles—like analytics—are imperfect. For example, we know Nikola Jokic is one of the game’s best playmakers, so calling him a “Post Scorer” is reductive. However, these estimates are still really good, and the “objective” nature of these roles adds to consistency and rigidity when we classify players.

The Method

Because it’s a plus-minus-based metric, LEBRON is only available from the 2013-14 season onward. Since then, there have been 2,406 player-seasons with more than 1,000 minutes played in the regular season. What we can do is compile these statistics—offensive archetype, defensive role, and LEBRON—and plot out which roles correlate with the strongest impact on both offense and defense. Based on those plots, we can point out key trends, uncertainties, and hopefully draw rough conclusions about which “skills” (isolation scoring, passing) provide the most value to basketball teams.

The Results

Let’s start with O-LEBRON and Offensive Archetypes. Below is a grouped box-plot that illustrates the O-LEBRON distributions for each Offensive Archetype. Underneath are the descriptive statistics of the O-LEBRON distributions, also grouped by Offensive Archetype.

There’s a mountain of evidence that O-LEBRON views Shot Creators [2] are the most valuable offensive players. They’re worth +1.56 points per 100 possessions on average, and interestingly post the highest standard deviation in its values among all archetypes. Not only do these players tend to provide lots of value, but the best of the best Shot Creators are also able to separate themselves from their peers unlike any archetype. Primary Ball-Handlers are the most similar, with the difference in their archetype being a lower rate of isolation scoring.

Movement Shooters and Off-Screen Shooters sound similar, yet the latter has a visible advantage. What’s the difference? Movement Shooters are mostly identified by their three-point rate, while Off-Screen Shooters have a higher proportion of scoring coming off screens or hand-offs. Interestingly, Movement Shooters cost their teams 0.3 points per 100 on average, while Off-Screen Shooters add 0.2 points on average.

Athletic Finishers and Slashers seem to have overlap. Yet, once again, the latter has a visible advantage. So what’s this difference? Athletic Finishers are characterized by their activity on cuts and putbacks, whereas slashers are determined by their three-point rates and drives per possession. Athletic Finishers were the least valuable archetype on average, costing 0.9 points per 100. Slashers, on the other hand, were the fourth-most valuable, adding 0.4 points per 100.

Post Scorers and Stretch Bigs are on opposite ends of the basketball timeline. The latter is seen as more progressive, yet Post Scorers are still more valuable according to LEBRON. They’re worth about 0.3 points more than Stretch Bigs per 100, and their distribution reaches higher. Meanwhile, Versatile Bigs tend to be more valuable than both! They can post up, shoot threes, roll to the basket, and are supposed to have more well-rounded skill sets.

Like Shot Creators for offense, Anchor Bigs appear to be the most valuable archetypes on defense. They are seen as less mobile, and tend to drop against shooters to defend the pick-and-roll. They also tend to not have very versatile matchups compared to other archetypes. Basically all of the all-time great defenders in the LEBRON era have been Anchor Bigs. Mobile Bigs trail as the “second-most valuable,” and these players tend to hedge screens and switch more heavily compared to Anchor Bigs. They’re worth 0.6 points per 100 on average.

POA’s and Wing Stoppers are both perimeter-oriented defenders. POA’s often defend opposing Ball-Handlers, whereas Wing Stoppers defend Shot Creators. POA’s have higher rates of matchup versatility, whereas Wing Stoppers have more responsibilities off-ball, switching, et cetera. Both archetypes are about neutral defenders on average, with the best Wing Stoppers reaching higher than the best POA’s.

Chasers and Helpers are both archetypes that involves lots of movements and court coverage. Chasers stick to shooters and cutters near the perimeter while Helpers are savvy rotators who provide resistance at the rim. Helpers are observably more valuable on average, and have reached far greater heights than the best Chasers.

Low Activity defenders are best known for their communication abilities when engaged, but otherwise provide little value in defending actions and matchups. They are, unsurprisingly, almost always value-losses.

Interpretation

Based on the differences between Primary Ball-Handlers and Shot Creators, there may be an indicator that (at least, for guards) isolationism is more valuable than pick-and-roll actions. As observed, Primary Ball-Handlers can still be some of the very best offensive players in the league, but the evidence suggests isolation scoring is typically more valuable, and that pick-and-roll ball-handlers likely have to be very, very good at what they do to reach those heights.

There’s also an absence of the assessment of passing quality in these archetypes. I’m compelled to believe passing bleeds into both of the above archetypes. Isolation scoring on its own is not very “valuable,” since it rarely adds more than 1.1 points per possession on average. For teams to exceed the league average of 1.13 in these years, they need higher-quality shots. As has been observed, isolation scorers who can pass to open teammates provide a dual threat that is unmatched by most any players. Perhaps that is why Primary Ball-Handlers can still reach the top of the O-LEBRON leaderboards. They create a ton of shots at the rim in the pick-and-roll without a massive scoring punch.

The differences between Movement and Off-Ball Shooters could be a commentary on “teamwork.” Perhaps the quality of a player’s looks when his teammates are involved in getting him open. Teams employ screens for obvious reasons: to stunt defenders. Players who make timely cuts also exploit defensive inattention. Movement, while it stretches the defense, likely isn’t on its own a large value-add. There needs to be some predication, an action that prohibits defenses from guarding tightly.

Athletic Finishers are clearly less valuable than Slashers despite similar damage at the rim. There’s something to be said geometrically, where players who pressure the rim with drives rather than scoring on second-chance opportunities are greater advantage creators. They can pass out of these spots, and their on-ball threat to score draws defensive attention in a more looming way than cutters. This is another instance in which the value of the scoring-passing combination seems to bleed through.

Big who stretch the floor are “less bad” than the worst Post Scorers, but they don’t provide the higher levels of value that the best Post Scorers do. This could have something to do with scoring around the rim, whereas bigs who draw attention to the perimeter are “always” providing a geometric effect that Post Scorers often don’t. But it’s clear that a combination of the two is best, and that bigs pretty much need to score at the rim at a decent clip to ascend offensively.

Defensively, the value of rim protection is Obvious with a capital “O.” There’s the narrative that shots at the rim are most efficient, so defenders who can not only sway them but deter them are most valuable. This seems true. Bigs who hedge screens may pose the risk of blow-bys and more shots at the rim, which might explain their decrease in value despite a more versatile skill set. Regardless, these defenders can still be really good by fizzling out perimeter actions while providing occasional paint resistance. But rim protection on its own seems to remain the gold standard for best-of-the-best defense.

Because one-on-one basketball tends to not yield great results, POA defenders aren’t super valuable. (Especially if they don’t provide skills elsewhere in deterring high-quality shots.) It’s the defensive equivalent to decent isolation scorers who can’t pass. Unless they reach a certain threshold for efficiency and passing, they’re not really doing much. Therefore, as the data suggests, there’s more value in defending Shot Creators whose skills demand off-ball awareness. Helping, switching, and resisting on the perimeter are noticeably more valuable.

Chasers are the antithesis to the “Movement” offensive skill, so it’s no surprise they are rarely positive defenders. (Again, especially if they don’t provide value in other areas.) But there have been some great Helper defenders in recent years. They are paramount paint defenders like bigs, but the positioning and switching that comes with the role does provide ancillary rim protection.

Footnotes

[1] Note that offensive archetypes and defensive roles aren’t based on “how well” a player carries out his role, but solely what that role is.

[2] “Shot Creator: players in this offensive role are non-Bigs that we identify as have high rates of perimeter and interior isolation rates, creating their own shots within the offense as a key skill set. Examples from 2019-20 are Luka Doncic and James Harden” (BBall-Index).

Premise

Historically, the MVP has been chosen arbitrarily—a mingling of analysis and intuition. This can be great by promoting varying styles of analysis. Broader conversations can launch new names into conversations. Different ideas challenge norms. For this list, I adhere to a strict criteria I’ve developed over the years—an amalgam of analyzing film, statistics, and value-theory. The overarching question I try to answer with these rankings is how well a player sets up a random team to win the championship. (This approach is derivative of the works of analysts like Seth Partnow and Ben Taylor.)

This still limits consideration to the regular season. Expectations for Playoff risers and fallers is irrelevant. I solely care about how well a player sets the team up to succeed in the Playoffs (where “things matter most”). This means actual seeding is less important, insofar as home-court advantage doesn’t play a crucial role in later rounds. To balance these factors, I concocted a championship odds calculator that inputs estimates of player value and games played. (The impact estimates are based on analysis and interpretation.)

The Ladder

10. Damian Lillard (NR)

This is dependent on Lillard not being a train wreck on defense, which the impact metrics seem to agree on. His offense has reached the level it once achieved, and his volume combination of scoring and playmaking is matched only by Luka Doncic. Major one-number metrics also seem to think he’s on the level of Curry, Jokic, and the likes.

9. Donovan Mitchell (-)

It’s been a few weeks since I’ve watched Cleveland, so I’m banking on a sustainable improvement in his defensive awareness here, which I imagine is feasible based on his situation. His offense is seriously defiant of the vertical nature of the game, though I do wonder a bit about his fairly low rate of scoring around the rim. Will restraint minimize his drive-and-kick playmaking? Not yet, that’s for sure!

8. Jayson Tatum (-1)

I don’t have much more to say about Tatum compared to last month. I’d like to see a bit more creation for teammates if I’m going to move him into serious MVP contention. But, wow… His combination of elite scoring and smothering perimeter defense is something you get from no one else on this list.

7. Giannis Antetokounmpo (-1)

If anything, I was expecting him to move up! His scoring efficiency has some catching up to do, though the remainder of his offensive skills seem to be on par with previous seasons. To my eye, his defensive awareness is slightly down, though I refrain from settling on that as a real thing since I don’t watch every game. Regardless, it’s hard to surpass an acceptable offensive number-one with Defensive Player of the Year potential.

6. Anthony Davis (+2)

This definitely isn’t my most confident pick. Davis is clearly better on both sides of the ball. LeBron James’s dominant style of offense has taken the backseat to Davis’s chops as a finisher and screener, and the result is mind-boggling statistics. His scoring output is at an all-time high. He looks like one of, if not, the best defensive players in the world. He also just looks better moving, manipulating low-post defenders with sly cuts and stampedes.

5. Joel Embiid (-)

Embiid is a fantastic two-way star. His scoring is the best it’s ever been and his playmaking is improving. He’s a beast around the rim on both sides of the ball, and his guard-like movements make him one of the most dangerous players in the game. He’s definitely playing like an MVP-level player, and if he were doing this two or three years ago, he might be a clear-cut finalist.

4. Luka Doncic (-)

I’m notoriously hesitant about gawking at volume statistics. Doncic is arguably the most prolific scorer and playmaker in the sport. Does that necessarily translate to championship offense when his teams are characterized by lackluster efficiencies and late-game fatigue? That’s why I’m not yet convinced. His defense is slightly improving however, and being one of the four-best players in basketball is nothing to shy away from.

3. Stephen Curry (-2)

Two main points move Curry down for me compared to last month: 1) the unsustainability of his finishing, which I explained was the deciding factor in his top spot, and then there’s the increase in competition that rivals his scoring output. If he were a strong defender, he’d possibly have the top spot again. But in this current defensive state with the Warriors, I moved him down until further notice.

2. Kevin Durant (+1)

There’s the aforementioned passing improvement from my last post, and his more solid defensive package pushes him over Curry for me. He’s now officially a member of the prestigious “30 points on +10% efficiency” club, and remains one of the three-best scorers and offensive players in the world for me.

1. Nikola Jokic (+1)

The best offensive player in the world, looking like one of the greatest offensive players of all time. He’s had an argument as basketball’s top scorer and playmaker for over a year now, but this season he’s dialed it up to eleven. There’s more than enough time to wait for his offensive rebounding to catch up. He also finally looks like a neutral defender in impact metrics, which to my eye is more reflective of his actual impact.

Resources

[1] Data from Basketball-Reference, DunksAndThrees, Thinking Basketball

You know the deal: All-Star power rankings. Which players are clear-cut? Which ones perhaps have a little more to prove? Divided among the tiers below are the players I evaluate as worthy of All-Star consideration. Let’s do it.

Tier 1

These players are undoubtedly performing at an All-Star level or higher. The gaps in play quality in this tier are the highest of any succeeding tier.

• • Giannis Antetokounmpo (East)
  • Devin Booker (West)
  • Jimmy Butler (East)
  • Stephen Curry (West)
  • Anthony Davis (West)
  • Luka Doncic (West)
  • Kevin Durant (East)
  • Joel Embiid (East)
  • Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (West)
  • Tyrese Haliburton (East)
  • James Harden (East)
  • Jaren Jackson Jr. (West)
  • Nikola Jokic (West)
  • Damian Lillard (West)
  • Donovan Mitchell (East)
  • Ja Morant (West)
  • Domantas Sabonis (West)
  • Pascal Siakam (East)
  • Jayson Tatum (East)
  • Karl-Anthony Towns (West)
  • Zion Williamson (West)

Tier 2

Either because of talent-scaling (the league is more top-heavy than ever), a higher margin of error associated with an All-Star level of play, or general uncertainty about their game, these players are “doubtedly” All-Stars.

• • Bam Adebayo (East)
  • Jarrett Allen (East)
  • Desmond Bane (West)
  • Jaylen Brown (East)
  • DeMar DeRozan (East)
  • De’Aaron Fox (West)
  • Darius Garland (East)
  • Paul George (West)
  • Rudy Gobert (West)
  • Jrue Holiday (East)
  • Brandon Ingram (West)
  • Kyrie Irving (East)
  • LeBron James (West)
  • Brook Lopez (East)
  • Lauri Markkanen (West)
  • Myles Turner (East)
  • Trae Young (East)

The Ballot

You know the rules: 5 starters (2 frontcourt, 3 backcourt); 5 reserves (2 frontcourt, 3 backcourt); and 2 wild cards (position negligible). Rosters for both the Eastern and Western Conference.

East

• • James Harden
  • Donovan Mitchell
  • Giannis Antetokounmpo
  • Kevin Durant
  • Joel Embiid
  • Darius Garland
  • Tyrese Haliburton
  • Jimmy Butler
  • Pascal Siakam
  • Jayson Tatum
  • Jaylen Brown
  • Jrue Holiday

West

• • Stephen Curry
  • Luka Doncic
  • Anthony Davis
  • Nikola Jokic
  • Zion Williamson
  • Damian Lillard
  • Ja Morant
  • Jaren Jackson Jr.
  • Domantas Sabonis
  • Karl-Anthony Towns
  • Devin Booker
  • Shai Gilgeous-Alexander

Thoughts

I’m fairly pleased with how this ballot turned out. The East wild cards were the most difficult to land on (the player pool was the entire second tier), but it’s about time I showed Jaylen Brown some All-Star love. I’m perfectly happy with the West, save for a slight discomfort caused by the strength of the conference’s guards. Devin Booker and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander being wild cards feels unnatural.

Premise

Historically, the MVP has been chosen arbitrarily—a mingling of analysis and intuition. This can be great by promoting varying styles of analysis. Broader conversations can launch new names into conversations. Different ideas challenge norms. For this list, I adhere to a strict criteria I’ve developed over the years—an amalgam of analyzing film, statistics, and value-theory. The overarching question I try to answer with these rankings is how well a player sets up a random team to win the championship. (This approach is derivative of the works of analysts like Seth Partnow and Ben Taylor.)

This still limits consideration to the regular season. Expectations for Playoff risers and fallers is irrelevant. I solely care about how well a player sets the team up to succeed in the Playoffs (where “things matter most”). This means actual seeding is less important, insofar as home-court advantage doesn’t play a crucial role in later rounds. To balance these factors, I concocted a championship odds calculator that inputs estimates of player value and games played. (The impact estimates are based on analysis and interpretation.)

The Ladder

10. Ten

The tenth spot is such a toss-up that I may as well treat it like an Honorable Mentions! Names considered for this spot include, as alphabetized:

• • Devin Booker
  • Jimmy Butler
  • Paul George
  • Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
  • James Harden
  • Ja Morant
  • Karl-Anthony Towns

9. Donovan Mitchell

Mitchell has upped his offense to a new level. The stylistic aspect of his game is consistent, but its efficiency is unbelievable. He attacks the rim like a madman and creates tons of offense for the corners. (Now we know Gobert wasn’t the problem.) There’s his shooting… my goodness. His defense has also been serviceable too; after multiple seasons of questionable play on that end, his anticipation and ability to clog passing lanes look better than last year. I don’t see evidence that he’s a clear negative.

8. Anthony Davis

Anthony Davis is… almost back? Not quite there. He’s somewhat close to his 2020 form, though it’s unlikely he reaches it. Any semblance of a jump shot he had during the bubble has recessed, which diminishes his spacing value. He’s also held back on the passing punch he had a few years ago. Regardless, he’s the Defensive Player of the Year in my eyes. Davis has an unmatched combination of valuable and scalable traits on that end, and… my gosh. Name any defensive skill and he’s got it.

7. Jayson Tatum

Tatum is having the most efficient season of his career despite a slight drop in three-point shooting! His shot selection and isolationism are both upgraded from last season. He looks better as an athlete, and that physical aid may help him ascend to “obligatory wing defender in DPOY conversations” territory! (No, seriously, his ball-pressure is some of the most impressive defensive work in the league.) Tatum has a chance to win the actual award because he plays for the game’s best team. On my list, he lands seventh.

6. Giannis Antetokounmpo

This is… weird. He’s still a prolific scorer and playmaker with Defensive Player of the Year chops on the other end. Those things alone make him a mainstay on the upper end of a list like this. However… his offense has come with a lot of opportunity cost so far. Antetokounmpo’s shot outside the paint is lagging hard to start the season, and it drags his overall efficiency below the league average. That’s enough for the major impact metrics to peg him in this range rather than finalist territory.

5. Joel Embiid

Embiid is probably not in the uppermost echelon of scorers in my book. (Even though he’s an incomprehensible isolation scorer.) But as his passing ability trickles in from more opportunities to create, his overall offense looks stronger. He’s not what I’d consider a really “good” passer, but he has enough range on his deliveries to be the primary force on a contending offense. Embiid is still a monster rebounder and low-post defender whose skills check more boxes than most other players in the world.

4. Luka Doncic

Doncic is probably (?) the favorite to win the award, so this may be a surprising placement. I’m not sold on “Luka-Ball” as the next model for great offense. The term “heliocentrism” is thrown around like pennies into a wishing well, but Doncic’s role in the current Mavericks roster demonstrates a drawback. Dallas tends to wear down late in games. Doncic is the most prolific decision-maker in the league, and it seems his relative lack of conditioning weakens the entire attack down the stretch. Regardless, he’s still fourth for me due to an unheralded mix of volume scoring and creation for teammates.

3. Kevin Durant

Durant’s relative True Shooting percentage is 7.7% ahead of the league; once his three-point percentage is up to speed, that number is going to skyrocket his name into contention for the best overall scoring numbers in the league. His un-guardable jump shot is still intact. He’s having the best passing season of his career to my eye—slicing out holes in perimeter coverages with more anticipation and stronger deliveries than ever. Add that to a positive defensive package, and you’ve got a strong MVP candidate.

2. Nikola Jokic

Jokic was the clear-cut MVP of the last two years. His scoring volume isn’t quite up to par yet, and voter fatigue is due to trickle in from the public and voters alike. That’s my estimation as to why he isn’t seen as an obvious finalist. Jokic is the most efficient of the game’s volume scorers, and he’s the best passer on the planet. He’s arguably the most complete offensive player in history. His rim protection as Denver’s primary backline defender still lags behind, which is the only thing holding him back from the top.

1. Stephen Curry

My, oh my… Where to start? Curry is “re-peaking” as the league’s top scorer and shooter, with more than a little airspace above the contenders. His leading spot is probably dependent on a permanent upgrade in his scoring around the rim, where he’s converting at a 76% rate. He has the craft and guile, but likely not the durability and positive aging signals to maintain it for long. (But I’m partial to streakier two-point than three-point improvements.) He’s otherwise Curry doing Curry things, and he’s at the top of virtually every major one-number metric.

Resources

[1] Data from Basketball-Reference, BBall-Index, Thinking Basketball

The Utah Jazz have received a lot of press in these past four weeks. The most surprising team to start the season, are they not? Perhaps. They are (as of the time of this writing) the fourth seed in the West with a positive point differential—worth a double take considering they were seen as a contender to land Victor Wembanyama. “But what does this have to do with Lauri Markkanen?” you ask. That’s a decent question—and the answer has everything to do with All-Star voting! Let’s take a dive into what in the Julius Randle is going on.

The Premise

Historically, All-Stars are selected through a mingling of their performances and their teams’ standings. This is great news for Lauri Markkanen. Why? Let me begin with an assertion—Lauri Markkanen is not an All-Star-level player, but… because of the Jazz’s record and preseason expectations, he might stand a chance to make the All-Star Game. “But… but…” you ask, “if Lauri Markkanen isn’t an All-Star-level player, why does he deserve to make the All-Star Game?”

I’m so glad you asked.

From the perspective that players should be rewarded for their ability or skill, the boost that some receive from being in the right situation is stupid. I’ve already fleshed this out (read here) so I won’t belabor any points. How this is relevant has lots to do with Lauri Markkanen’s case because, like I said, he doesn’t demonstrate All-Star skill but his name is littered in All-Star conversations. This was obvious when I published my first All-Star ballot of the season. My omission of Markkanen from either tier of All-Star consideration implied I did not consider him an All-Star-level player. This is correct. Resisting comments were quick to defend Markkanen’s case:

I clearly disagree with this, don’t I? And what’s the best way to further a point in a caring and considerable manner?—Making the opposing argument as strong as could possibly be.

To the best of my ability, I am going to lay out Lauri Markkanen’s All-Star case—but with a twist. I still only care about his efficacy as a player. Team, teammates, and attributes of the Utah Jazz’s system are irrelevant. I believe All-Stars deserve their recognition for playing like All-Stars, and Markkanen won’t receive a special treatment. So let’s get into it!

Scouting Report

Markkanen has demonstrated solid three-point shooting during his career. His three-point percentage of 36.5% is unspectacular, and right in line with his career average of 36.4%. To me, he provides value as a shooter away from the ball—a stretch four who can catch and shoot at an above-average clip (40.2%), mostly in pick-and-pop situations. On the other hand, he’s an infrequent and inefficient pull-up shooter—a skill crucial to a player’s ability to create offense for teammates in a spaced-out offense. The Jazz have methodically had him work from the corners, spots (in which his three-point percentage is 45.8%) that are valuable real estate. The corners are also outlets for his attacks to the paint.

Markkanen is tall, strong, and sturdy with a fine-tuning of footwork that creates separation between defenders in the paint. He has spins, twists, and twirls that carve out floater-range shots. (Markkanen’s percentage of attempts that are floaters had nearly doubled from its previous high.) Farther downhill, he’s a solid finisher who can draw fouls and convert at high rates—driving about five times per game and finishing at a 76% rate. Markkanen does require “assistance” from teammates’ passes at times; he has burst as a big man, but not enough to get to the rim at will. (He often picks up his dribble only a few steps into the paint.) His bruising and jostling allows him to contend with formidable big men like Bam Adebayo and Anthony Davis close to the basket.

This is where his All-Star case becomes tricky. His scoring punch has been good—not great, for all intents and purposes—without a strong isolation package or slashing ability. His style is suited to play alongside a more demanding offensive force, a truer “number one” who can leverage the pick-and-pop and make timely passes when Markkanen cuts baseline. That’s a pretty good scoring package, but where it falls short is in its ability to boost the value of his lackluster passing. He’s had flashes of range and accuracy, but nothing that—when sifted through—indicates he’s growing into the role of a playmaker. (For instance, the percentage of Markkanen’s assists that end in layups is 21% below the league average.)

His defensive skills are slightly fuzzier to me. Markkanen defends a fair amount of shots at the rim, inducing misses without a high block rate. But any skills he has a rim protector have yet to translate to latent value, such as deterring shots at the rim. Teams are content to attack the rim with Markkanen on the floor, which could be a problem due to his nonexistent presence as a perimeter defender. He exemplifies the Jazz’s inconsistent switch tactics, so he doesn’t content many threes nor is he an avid helper. Without brushing up on his defensive range—which seems unlikely to happen in Utah—Markkanen’s argument as a clearly positive to strong defender seems weak.

The Jazz offense is a suitable place for him to mimic his ideal offensive role: a pick-and-pop, bruising, floater-range specialist who can score at two levels. In Utah, he’s a semi-frequent but undesirable pick-and-roll ball-handler, which is an action teams would want to avoid to build a strong offense. Paired with weak passing, I see Markkanen as a solid third-to-fourth option on a contending offense. Defensively, he’s going to need backline help from a stronger, rangier rim protector; and if he’s the primary rim protector, his team will need to bank on strong defensive play from guards to prevent open three-pointers.

Here are Markkanen’s ranks in high-level impact metrics [1]:

• • Backpicks BPM +2.6 (48th)
  • Basketball-Reference BPM +2.8 (36th)
  • Box RAPTOR +1.7 (80th)
  • EPM +4.7 (23rd)

The Strongest Case

What is Markkanen’s upper bound?—the highest extent to which I can evaluate his impact. If that estimate doesn’t match All-Star level, by the rules of this exercise, Markkanen has no case to be an All-Star. I’ll view each of skills through the rosiest of glasses, give him the benefit of the doubt in all reasonable areas (considering the trade-offs between skill interactions). To start, here are Markkanen’s strengths as a player, by my scouting report:

• • Floater-range footwork
  • Bullying in the paint
  • C&S and screening at the corners
  • Complementary rim protection

I can’t reasonably upgrade his passing, nor is his off-ball package enough for me to say he’d be a “number two” on a contending offense. For that, he’d need rangy, connective passing to and from his corner spots. (In theory, these could lead to more layup passes.) His footwork and physical attributes can dismiss the notion that his scoring near the basket “will eventually cool down.” This version of his scoring—high volume on high efficiency—could be here to stay.

Defensively, I’m still convinced he needs backline help. His opponents are finishing at a low clip when he defends at the hoop, but it doesn’t justify Markkanen’s sedentary defensive role. He could probably help keep a poorer defensive afloat—but without a flank of perimeter defenders or a better rim protector as a failsafe, Markkanen’s defensive package is neither good nor bad. This all goes to say I see a limited ceiling on how highly I can evaluate his defense.

Markkanen’s impact metrics are inconclusive. EPM, which includes tracking data and plus-minus, pegs him at an All-Star level. But RAPTOR also includes these parts (in a varied fashion) and indicates he’s not close to contention! The box-score metrics both agree he’s outside contention. These metrics, in which force-fits to team performance can overstate players on teams that are greater than the sum of their parts (the Jazz), are reluctant to launch Markkanen into All-Star territory. This signal works against his “strongest” case.

Conclusion

Markkanen is not an All-Star.

Returning to the article’s title—what is the Lauri Markkanen Corollary? To my estimation, it’s when a team (the Jazz) jumps out with unexpected success. That team, whoever it may be (the Jazz), plays an egalitarian style, and its success is the function of many contributions from solid or good players, rather than fewer contributions from great players. But this explanation is unsatisfying—it’s too long, takes up too much headspace to put all the pieces together. Thus, the instinct is to look to one player (Markkanen) for the majority or all of his team’s success—the Lauri Markkanen Corollary.

Footnotes

[1] Box RAPTOR is my preferred variant of RAPTOR for all players. Especially early in the season, the plus-minus component is unstable. Markkanen ranks 66th in total RAPTOR.

[2] Data collected from Backpicks, Basketball-Reference, BBall-Index, DunksAndThrees, FiveThirtyEight, NBA, PBPStats.

Every few weeks, I power rank teams based on their likelihood to win the 2023 championship, as decided by me! Last month’s edition was a success by my standards considering I didn’t lose sleep over it. But a lot has changed in the NBA landscape. A lot. Listed alongside each team is its change in rankings from the preseason edition. (NB: The gaps between teams means less in the lower ranks. After the “Good” teams, all odds are essentially zero.)

Let’s Not Talk About It

30. San Antonio Spurs (-3)

Already forgot them.

29. Houston Rockets (-)

28. Detroit Pistons (-3)

27. Orlando Magic (-4)

Weird aesthetics.

26. Charlotte Hornets (-5)

25. Oklahoma City Thunder (+3)

Giddy for Giddey.

Average-ish

24. New York Knicks (-4)

Greek Yogurt.

23. Washington Wizards (-1)

22. Chicago Bulls (-3)

Prototypically average.

21. Utah Jazz (+10)

They have a “salty” flavor to them.

20. Atlanta Hawks (-2)

19. Brooklyn Nets (-9)

18. Los Angeles Lakers (-3)

Deepest of the deepest sleepers.

17. Portland Trail Blazers (+1)

Called it I guess…

Good

16. Indiana Pacers (+10)

15. Minnesota Timberwolves (-3)

14. Miami Heat (-7)

13. Sacramento Kings (+11)

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

12. Toronto Raptors (+1)

Pretenders

11. Memphis Grizzlies (+3)

10. Denver Nuggets (-2)

Eh.

9. New Orleans Pelicans (+7)

Wow! Cool!

8. Dallas Mavericks (+3)

Strange. Very strange…

7. Philadelphia 76ers (-1)

6. LA Clippers (-2)

They might be a contender. Kawhi. I don’t know.

Contenders

5. Cleveland Cavaliers (+6)

4. Golden State Warriors (-3)

Don’t ask.

3. Phoenix Suns (+3)

2. Milwaukee Bucks (–)

Two of arguably the three strongest DPOY candidates (Antetokounmpo, Lopez) defending the backline; and that doesn’t even begin to scrape Holiday’s defensive impact. The offense will hopefully stop lagging when All-Star Khris Middleton returns.

1. Boston Celtics (+2)

The best offensive team in the NBA designed for repetition and sustainability, poised for even greater success when all the elements of their defensive core return from injury. The clear-cut frontrunner for the 2023 NBA championship in my book.

Nice job?

Monthly data from the NBA begets the fruitless (and slightly masochistic) tradition of ranking players. This post won’t rank players in the typical sense—in, say, an ordered list. Rather, I’m continuing a series I’ve done each of the past two seasons in which I update my All-Star ballot continuously throughout the season. (Read introductory editions for 2021 and 2022 for list structure.) Now, with 13-16 games under the healthy stars’ belts, I’m slightly comfortable indulging myself in this kind of thing. Leave your criticisms in the comments!

Tier 1

Regardless of positional constraints, these players are performing at All-Star levels. (The lower bound of their estimated value matches or exceeds All-Star “level.”) To argue otherwise may earn you the label of a basketball heretic.

• Giannis Antetokounmpo (East)
• Devin Booker (West)
• Jimmy Butler (East)
• Stephen Curry (West)
• Anthony Davis (West)
• Luka Doncic (West)
• Kevin Durant (East)
• Joel Embiid (East)
• De’Aaron Fox (West)
• Paul George (West)
• Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (West)
• Tyrese Haliburton (East)
• James Harden (East)
• LeBron James (West)
• Nikola Jokic (West)
• Damian Lillard (West)
• Donovan Mitchell (East)
• Ja Morant (West)
• Pascal Siakam (East)
• Jayson Tatum (East)
• Karl-Anthony Towns (West)
• Myles Turner (East)

Tier 2

These players have a larger margin of error associated with their status as All-Star performers. I’d consider these guys to be strong candidates. Whether or not they make the ballot is, in large part, determined by the NBA’s talent distribution at the top and positional constraints.

• Bam Adebayo (East)
• Jarrett Allen (East)
• Jaylen Brown (East)
• DeMar DeRozan (East)
• Darius Garland (East)
• Rudy Gobert (West)
• Draymond Green (West)
• Jrue Holiday (East)
• Brandon Ingram (West)
• Kyrie Irving (East)
• Brook Lopez (East)
• Chris Paul (West)
• Domantas Sabonis (West)
• Zion Williamson (West)
• Trae Young (East)

The Ballot

You know the rules: 5 starters (2 frontcourt, 3 backcourt); 5 reserves (2 frontcourt, 3 backcourt); and 2 wild cards (position negligible). Rosters for both the Eastern and Western Conference.

Eastern Conference

• James Harden
• Donovan Mitchell
• Giannis Antetokounmpo
• Kevin Durant
• Joel Embiid

 

• Darius Garland
• Tyrese Haliburton
• Jimmy Butler
• Pascal Siakam
• Jayson Tatum

 

• Kyrie Irving
• Myles Turner

Western Conference

• Stephen Curry
• Luka Doncic
• Anthony Davis
• Nikola Jokic
• Karl-Anthony Towns

 

• Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
• Ja Morant
• Paul George
• LeBron James
• Domantas Sabonis

 

• Devin Booker
• De’Aaron Fox

Thoughts

The NBA’s talent distribution makes it increasingly harder to choose All-Stars in its current roster format. Before, I’ve done up to 4 tiers of players to be considered for All-Star, in which the gaps among tiers were fairly recognizable. But this year, I somehow managed to fill 37 spots in 2 tiers. (Hence, I omit the last 2 tiers.) Stat “inflation” is one thing to consider in which the values of counting statistics like points and assists are lower than in seasons past. But there’s also a clear distinction between current and previous talent distributions. Thus, it may be worth revising the definition of an All-Star. (For example, expanding the number of roster spots to 15.)

This season has legitimately been a fever dream. The Kings and Pacers have 2 All-Stars each (according to me). Brook Lopez and Myles Turner are officially on my agenda. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander might be the box-score MVP if not for an impromptu Stephen Curry mega-explosion. (Curry is currently my MVP frontrunner.) At the end of the day, I’m glad doing this didn’t worsen my tension headache. Please leave criticisms below! I don’t watch every game or look at every stat.

(Picture via NBA)

I typically don’t do things like this (because I think they’re pointless), but this season is as good as any for the masochistic practice of predictions! Yes, these will, in part, be your typical run-of-the-mill record predictions, but I’ll also throw in some power rankings to spice it up. Let me start by differentiating between those two things: 1) The win predictions are, shockingly, the number of games I estimate a team to win in 2023. By no means are they accurate or reliable, but they serve as ballparking values for more-or-less how I’m feeling about a team right now. 2) The power rankings, or the actual order in which teams are ranked, are based on the likelihood that I think each team will win the title. These are what I’d consider my actual “ranking” of each team. That means I may project a higher win total in the regular season for a team whose championship odds are superseded by another. With that wrapped up, let’s get into the nitty-gritty!

(NB: I don’t end up predicting wins. Fairly self-explanatory.)

“Just wait and see, five years from now…”

30. Utah Jazz

Yikes.

29. Houston Rockets

Jalen Green could drop 20 a game. Looking out for him to blossom into a real offensive threat in the near future.

28. Oklahoma City Thunder

27. San Antonio Spurs

Sometimes I forget they exist.

26. Indiana Pacers

25. Detroit Pistons

Minefield of young talent. Not nearly fleshed out enough to make a push for anything, but I am eager to explore the synergies between their rookies and sophomores.

24. Sacramento Kings

Mike Brown as HC will make them an interesting watch. Preseason has shown us some gritty, switch-heavy defense, although the Kings have been treating the preseason like it’s the NBA Finals. They have an interesting assortment of players who are worth the view.

23. Orlando Magic

Average

22. Washington Wizards

I am oddly intrigued by this team. Not because I think they’ll be good, but because Beal-Porzingis will be an interesting offensive combo spread over time. Would tune into several of their games for Deni Avdija alone.

21. Charlotte Hornets

20. New York Knicks

19. Chicago Bulls

18. Portland Trail Blazers

Hmm…

17. Atlanta Hawks

16. New Orleans Pelicans

Looking like they could ascend to “good” in the near future if the indicators show up. Throwing Zion into Ingram-McCollum offenses could be dangerous (for the opponents). But they did lose Tony Snell. Probably near the top of my watchlist. Basically tied with next team.

15. Los Angeles Lakers

Darwin Ham might be a basketball genius. Anthony Davis’s health is obviously key if they want to come close to contending. LeBron will probably still receive soft MVP consideration. Austin Reaves will manhandle your favorite backcourt. But the Westbrook signals don’t look great so far, especially on defense. If that domino doesn’t fall, I don’t see a spectacular ceiling for this team.

Good

14. Memphis Grizzlies

13. Toronto Raptors

Canadians are too defensive of their basketball team for me to risk ranking them any lower. But seriously, the Raptors are looking like they’ll be a good team. They’re young and complement each other well enough, so some upside is feasible. Not quite past that play-in level. Not quite average.

12. Minnesota Timberwolves

I don’t know.

11. Cleveland Cavaliers

10. Brooklyn Nets

By now, I’m just playing Russian Roulette trying to get this right.

Pretenders

9. Dallas Mavericks

8. Denver Nuggets

Lots of offense! Lots of offense! Jokic-MPJ-Murray lineups, in the spirit of throwing out predictions, will produce the highest offensive ratings in history this season. That’s it. Keep Murray healthy. Don’t let Michael Porter Jr. handle the basketball. Jokic. Defensive questions.

7. Miami Heat

6. Phoenix Suns

No, I don’t think this team fell off a cliff. Well-coached, Devin Booker is a legitimate primary offender (get it?) at this point, so Chris Paul’s aging curve at least has a failsafe. Losing JaVale McGee is only a minor tragedy. Not sure if this is going to be a team that runs away with another top seed, though.

Contenders

5. Philadelphia 76ers

De’Anthony Melton and P.J. Tucker are sneaky good pieces. Harden and Embiid shared minutes will produce some of the highest offensive ratings in the league, and they’re looking like a contender for one of the league’s best defenses too. Montrezl Harrell? I really don’t know.

4. LA Clippers

Literally flipped a coin to choose between them and Philly. No, I’m not kidding! I know that sounds like a joke, but it’s not.

3. Boston Celtics

This team got better on paper, but… Until they demonstrate in the regular season that the off-court predicaments are going to bleed into the on-court stuff to a “significant” level, I’m riding with the talent. Malcolm Brogdon is such a savvy addition to this roster, brings the pick-and-roll chops their offense would have thrived with last year. Timelord’s knee and the other stuff likely will cost them several games in the regular season, so let’s hope for them that home-court advantage falls their way (even if it’s not crucial).

2. Milwaukee Bucks

The Bucks added Joe Ingles! Let us fall to our knees and rejoice in this miracle! But seriously, that was quite the player to bring in during an offseason in which they lost no rotational pieces. Milwaukee underperformed in the regular season last year and lost a cutthroat semis that was decided by Grant Williams’s hot hand. This team is legitimately great and there should be no surprises if they capture their second title in three seasons next June.

1. Golden State Warriors

I’m liking Golden State to repeat for the championship this year. (Not particularly worried about the Draymond situation yet.) Donte DiVincenzo looks to be a prototypical Warrior, passing to cutters with solid perimeter defense off the bench. But Gary Payton II will be sorely missed at the point-of-attack. That dude was legitimately a monster and his contributions will never be fully appreciated. JaMychal Green also has some passing chops apparently, is a nice movement shooter you can stick in the corner and pull defenses. James Wiseman is not a finished product, but he’s big (even if his handle is vulnerable), incredible lateral quickness for his size, with a wide dunk radius that adds some versatility to the Warriors’ passing targets with lob finishing. Poole continues to grow, Curry (no explanation needed), and Draymond doesn’t fall off a cliff, and this team is a sure contender.

Time to roast me in the comments!