The ONE AND ONLY Luka Doncic discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
I know you are. I was going to ask your thoughts on the game if that’s acceptable?
Shoot, sorry. Kinda misread that post.

I honestly thought Luka had one of his better games on defense tonight. It was actually KP getting attacked on defense down the stretch as he struggled to keep up against the Knicks bigs on the perimeter.

It helps that the Knicks have pretty much no wings of note to attack Luka with aside from Barrett, who was getting guarded by pretty much anyone other than Luka for most of the evening.
 
Shoot, sorry. Kinda misread that post.

I honestly thought Luka had one of his better games on defense tonight. It was actually KP getting attacked on defense down the stretch as he struggled to keep up against the Knicks bigs on the perimeter.

It helps that the Knicks have pretty much no wings of note to attack Luka with aside from Barrett, who was getting guarded by pretty much anyone other than Luka for most of the evening.
Interesting. I thought the Knicks went on a roll in the third quarter partly based on Luka’s poor defense. He gave up a number of drives and made no effort to fight over the pick and roll.

To be fair he did stop penetration on a couple drives.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
Interesting. I thought the Knicks went on a roll in the third quarter partly based on Luka’s poor defense. He gave up a number of drives and made no effort to fight over the pick and roll.

To be fair he did stop penetration on a couple drives.
I mean, it wasn't just him. The entire Mavs roster is made up of generally poor to mediocre defenders with a few exceptions. Zinger has the lateral quickness of a sloth so the Knicks bigs were getting him on skates all night in iso situations.
 
I mean, it wasn't just him. The entire Mavs roster is made up of generally poor to mediocre defenders with a few exceptions. Zinger has the lateral quickness of a sloth so the Knicks bigs were getting him on skates all night in iso situations.
Yeah I agree. My issue from watching Mavs games is Doncic doesn’t even seem to try. He makes zero effort to get over the screen.
 
Here is an interesting analysis on RealGM

Looking at on-court and on-off numbers in tandem can be very informative, especially with context regarding lineups/rotations. The 1st number takes a player's total +/- and averages it out over 100 possessions; the 2nd number compares his team's production with him versus without him and averages it out over 100 possessions.

These data points generate 4 general categories that players can fall into:

Positive-Positive
When the first number is positive, we know the player's team outscored their opponents while he was on the court. Maybe the player was vital to that success or maybe he was riding the coattails of his teammates, but at a minimum the positive number demonstrates the player can be part of a winning recipe.

When the second number is positive, we know that the team's average +/- was better with the player than without him. "But that depends on lineups/rotations" you might say, and you would be right. It's possible the player is benefitting from a more favorable position in the rotation. That said, if a player is regarded as being the clear best on his team, there really isn't an excuse for that player to have a negative on/off. Especially knowing that every NBA team staggers their rotations.

In sum, 2 positives show us the player (a) won more possessions than he lost while on the court and (b) his team produced more efficiently when he was on the court than off the court. Maybe he lucked his way into the best lineups on a great team, but it's much more likely the player provides positive impact of his own. It's no coincidence the top 16 players from RealGM's top 25 project all fall into this category. As for the 17th player, he lands in our next category...

Negative-Positive
A negative-positive tells us the player's team was outscored while he was on the court, but that the team played better with him than without him. Enter #17 ranked Bradley Beal. The Wizards were really bad last year, so it should come as no surprise that Beal had a negative +/- on the season. It's still not the highest praise given that only 1 other player in the top 25 had a negative +/-, but at least he demonstrated positive impact on his own team. The same can't be said for our next example...

Positive-Negative
A positive-negative tells us the player's team outscored their opponents while he was on the court, but that they produced even more efficiently without him. The highest ranked player in this group would be Philly's own, Ben Simmons at #22. As the 3rd best player on last year's Sixers, many of Ben's minutes were staggered against 2 better players in Embiid and Butler. It makes sense that Simmons/Embiid or Simmons/Butler combos might not perform as well as Butler/Embiid. It's not an inditement on Ben, but it does provide further evidence that he's not the best player on the team (nor the 2nd best in last year's case). Only 1 other player in the top 25 had a negative on/off, who also happens to be Beal's lone companion with a negative +/-. That player falls into our final category...

Negative-Negative
Opposite to the positive-positive distinction, the negative-negative shows us the player (a) lost more possessions than he won while on the court and (b) his team performed more efficiently without him than with him. Because there was only 1 negative-negative in the top 25 list, I wanted to see how far I could make it before finding another. Using SI's top 100, I made it all the way to #62 before I found another negative-negative. That's kind of telling, I think. In the rare cases that a star puts up a negative +/-, we should be able to say "yeah but the rest of the team was that bad." With a negative on/off however, that argument doesn't fly. If a true star can't demonstrably improve the production of a bad team, then maybe the player isn't as impactful as we believe him to be.

By now you might realize who I'm referring to. The only player in SI's top 61 players to sport a negative-negative last season was the European wonder: Luka Doncic. By rookie standards, it's really not that worrisome. In fact, the negative-negative at #62 was another rookie: Trae Young. Fast forward to this year though, and Trae has a firmly positive on/off, while Doncic is still a negative-negative 10 games into the season. So what's the deal? His box numbers have been incredible, but his impact just isn't there. Not yet at least. Is there any context Mavs fans can provide to explain what we're seeing? You can laugh off +/- and on/off numbers, but when he's the only player in the top 61 with 2 negatives, it's fair to assume his impact doesn't match his reputation. It's one thing to call him a future superstar, but a current superstar? I'm not convinced. His defense is only one part of the equation because the Mavs' offense has produced -4.6 less points per 100 possessions when Luka is on the court.
they should trade him to us if there better with him on the floor but than again he’s probably one of a handful of untouchable players
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
they should trade him to us if there better with him on the floor but than again he’s probably one of a handful of untouchable players
For better or worse, the Mavs have hitched their wagon to the Luka/Zaps train for the greater part of the next decade and judging from how bad most of their non-Luka pieces have looked and how many of their assets are owned by the Knicks, I don’t anticipate them making many trades at all over the next couple of years.
 
For better or worse, the Mavs have hitched their wagon to the Luka/Zaps train for the greater part of the next decade and judging from how bad most of their non-Luka pieces have looked and how many of their assets are owned by the Knicks, I don’t anticipate them making many trades at all over the next couple of years.
Mavs didn’t sign any free agents. It will be interesting to see how many free agents want to play there going forward.
 
Porzingis surprised the hell out of me when he came into the league. Turned out to be much better than I expected but then he instantly became extremely overrated. I don't think his impact on the game was ever nearly as good as the talking heads made it out to be. We're seeing a lot of that in Dallas right now.
 

SLAB

Hall of Famer
Porzingis surprised the hell out of me when he came into the league. Turned out to be much better than I expected but then he instantly became extremely overrated. I don't think his impact on the game was ever nearly as good as the talking heads made it out to be. We're seeing a lot of that in Dallas right now.
He’s also 11 games back from a torn ACL and a long long time off... It’s a wait and see thing.
 

SLAB

Hall of Famer
I'm just saying that like even at his peak before the injury, it seemed like he had a 2018 Buddy Hield impact on the game. Good but not a superstar or anything.
I’d call him a potentially ascending star at his peak. Definitely remains to be seen now.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
I'm just saying that like even at his peak before the injury, it seemed like he had a 2018 Buddy Hield impact on the game. Good but not a superstar or anything.
He's a 7'3" center who can shoot threes and be a rim protector. He cannot, however, play with his back to the basket (he is really really bad in the post because he's not all that strong despite his size), stay with even other big men out on the perimeter, or create for others at that great a rate (though that may just be due to the lack of talent surrounding him to this point). By no means is he horrible but he certainly has his limitations that the other "unicorn" bigs don't have/have other skills to make irrelevant.

The main issue is that Carlisle is using him like prime Boogie Cousins with force-fed post ups every night rather than plugging him into Dirk plays where he'd be more effective.
 
He's a 7'3" center who can shoot threes and be a rim protector. He cannot, however, play with his back to the basket (he is really really bad in the post because he's not all that strong despite his size), stay with even other big men out on the perimeter, or create for others at that great a rate (though that may just be due to the lack of talent surrounding him to this point). By no means is he horrible but he certainly has his limitations that the other "unicorn" bigs don't have/have other skills to make irrelevant.

The main issue is that Carlisle is using him like prime Boogie Cousins with force-fed post ups every night rather than plugging him into Dirk plays where he'd be more effective.
they lost the Lakers game trying to give him post touches late in the game, also don’t see a lot of Luka/Porzingis pick and roll
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
He's a 7'3" center who can shoot threes and be a rim protector. He cannot, however, play with his back to the basket (he is really really bad in the post because he's not all that strong despite his size), stay with even other big men out on the perimeter, or create for others at that great a rate (though that may just be due to the lack of talent surrounding him to this point)...
This is the reason why Porzingis is not included in the nightly Big Man listings. He is not Big Man, he is Tall Man.
 
The Mavs are making a huge mistake not starting and playing Maxi starters minutes he's a the best defender on the team and can make 3's I don't understand the love affair with Dwight Powell who is a smaller way worse Holmes(BEAST) without any defense. It's no accident the Mavs started to suck once Powell took Maxi's playing time imo. Powell is another gives you empty stats player.
 

SLAB

Hall of Famer
The Mavs are making a huge mistake not starting and playing Maxi starters minutes he's a the best defender on the team and can make 3's I don't understand the love affair with Dwight Powell who is a smaller way worse Holmes(BEAST) without any defense. It's no accident the Mavs started to suck once Powell took Maxi's playing time imo. Powell is another gives you empty stats player.
Is Kleiber actually good? The only times I get to watch the Mavs he just exists to miss threes. Lol
 
Is Kleiber actually good? The only times I get to watch the Mavs he just exists to miss threes. Lol
I mean Powell isn’t good either so...

those dumbass down there need to stop thinking there gonna get A list Free agents and fill the roster out. You’re not getting Giannis get your damn mvp player some help
 
Is Kleiber actually good? The only times I get to watch the Mavs he just exists to miss threes. Lol
Defensively he's what Holmes is to us, he's a tremendous defensive player and can do everything Powell does plus hit the odd 3 and can finish around the rim (although he rarely roles). Watch him next few times on the defensive end since it's impossible to stand out anywhere else with Luka doing the James Harden thing.

I don't think the Dallas roster is as bad (not saying it's good) as some are saying DFS/Curry/Maxi/THJ/Wright are all good rotation pieces they just lack a 3rd scoring option and the constant obsession when Dwight Powell for the past 3 seasons is beyond annoying their defense with him in the game is beyond crap. They blew it like the Kings not going after Brogdan/Oubre JR.
 
Last edited:
The one caveat with Luka is you are constantly chasing a roster imbalance. He's a playmaking 4 who cannot defend. Whomever drafted Luka was going to have to make that Porzingis trade. On paper, Porzingis is a must to pair next to Luka. We'll see if Porzingis can regain form. They probably need an All-Star caliber SG who is also a plus defender to really compete. And therein lies the crux of the issue...how many 2-way All-Star SG (or big PG) are going to be cool with never initiating the offense or probably even closing games?
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
The one caveat with Luka is you are constantly chasing a roster imbalance. He's a playmaking 4 who cannot defend. Whomever drafted Luka was going to have to make that Porzingis trade. On paper, Porzingis is a must to pair next to Luka. We'll see if Porzingis can regain form. They probably need an All-Star caliber SG who is also a plus defender to really compete.
Credit to Dallas, they did what is supposed to be the hard part: acquire a young, generational talent. But... they'd hardly be the first franchise to get an All-NBA talent, and totally fail to build a winning team around him.
 
The one caveat with Luka is you are constantly chasing a roster imbalance. He's a playmaking 4 who cannot defend.
Hardest part of building a roster is finding that ball handling creator you can build around. When it comes to Luka creating a "roster imbalance" I disagree.

First of all having a great ball handling creator at the wing gives you more opportunities at roster building. For example you can have a Malcom Brogdon type point guard, a guy that doesnt have to be that primary ball handler but who can be a good shooter, defender and a guy that makes the right play.

Luka has size so while atm he is a net negative as an individual defender (at least if you ignore defensive rebounding) you can "hide" him on smaller or bigger guys that mostly just spot up like KCP, Ariza, OG, Bjelica, Prince, ect. You need a good wing defender next to him but imo any team that wants to be good needs good wing defenders so they would need one anyway.

Of cource it would be great for Mavs if Luka was a plus defender. Lebron in his prime was a top 3 defender in the league and thats one reason he is top 1-3 players that have ever played the game. Defense will decrease Lukas value sligthly but in his case defense is the flaw that is easiest to hide and even with that flaw he can be a big net positve while operating on the most valuable position and the most important role.

They probably need an All-Star caliber SG who is also a plus defender to really compete.
Most teams that "really compete" have three all star level players so I agree with you but them needing an all star caliber player doesnt have anything to do with Luka.

And therein lies the crux of the issue...how many 2-way All-Star SG (or big PG) are going to be cool with never initiating the offense
I mean there are plenty of examples on how well these all star pairs/trios have coexisted. Lebron - Wade, Lebron - Kyrie, Steph - Klay - KD, Harden - Paul, Westbrook - KD for example.
 
Credit to Dallas, they did what is supposed to be the hard part: acquire a young, generational talent. But... they'd hardly be the first franchise to get an All-NBA talent, and totally fail to build a winning team around him.
"All-NBA" I agree with completely. The term "generational talent" I have problems with. Michael Jordan was simultaneously the best offensive player AND the best defensive player in the league. Hopefully nobody wants to argue about Luka being great on defense. That may be possible in the future, but not yet. There were people who called Carmelo a generational talent because he's good on offense, despite his general lack of interest in defense. Luka's been everything I expected him to be, but he has a way to go to get to Jordan level. If ever.
 
I mean there are plenty of examples on how well these all star pairs/trios have coexisted. Lebron - Wade, Lebron - Kyrie, Steph - Klay - KD, Harden - Paul, Westbrook - KD for example.
Uh, I think the above is satire because every single pairing listed split acrimoniously with the exception of Wade/Lebron, who are 100% best friends off-the-court and Wade was washed anyway by the end of their run together. Let me know if I missed the joke.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
"All-NBA" I agree with completely. The term "generational talent" I have problems with. Michael Jordan was simultaneously the best offensive player AND the best defensive player in the league. Hopefully nobody wants to argue about Luka being great on defense.
I would argue that your criteria for generational talent is askew. I don't draw the line at, "must be able to be in the same sentence as Michael Jordan." Charles Barkley was a generational talent, and he was never a good defender, either; to paraphrase my favorite sports and entertainment personality Bomani Jones, they only made one of those. Dirk Nowitzki was also a generational talent, who was never a great defender; that dude legitimately redefined and codified what is expected from the "stretch four." Other generational talents who weren't good defenders include, but not necessarily limited to: Bob Petit, Elgin Baylor, Rick Barry, Dominique Wilkins and Allen Iverson.

There were people who called Carmelo a generational talent because he's good on offense, despite his general lack of interest in defense.
Prime!Melo was, arguably, one of the Top Ten pure scorers in the history of the NBA. AFAIC, that's as close to generational talent as makes no odds.
 
I would argue that your criteria for generational talent is askew. I don't draw the line at, "must be able to be in the same sentence as Michael Jordan." Charles Barkley was a generational talent, and he was never a good defender, either; to paraphrase my favorite sports and entertainment personality Bomani Jones, they only made one of those. Dirk Nowitzki was also a generational talent, who was never a great defender; that dude legitimately redefined and codified what is expected from the "stretch four." Other generational talents who weren't good defenders include, but not necessarily limited to: Bob Petit, Elgin Baylor, Rick Barry, Dominique Wilkins and Allen Iverson.

Prime!Melo was, arguably, one of the Top Ten pure scorers in the history of the NBA. AFAIC, that's as close to generational talent as makes no odds.
Seems like the main difference is our definitions of "generational talent". What is the difference between a generational talent and a perennial all star? Is one higher than the other on a numerical scale? It's a vague term, and we have different standards.

To me it sounds like different ways of saying "He's really good." I will admit to some irritation at those who use the term as if it means "best player to enter the league in the last 20 years."
 
Uh, I think the above is satire because every single pairing listed split acrimoniously with the exception of Wade/Lebron, who are 100% best friends off-the-court and Wade was washed anyway by the end of their run together. Let me know if I missed the joke.
Uh, KD - Steph - Klay trio won championship. Lebron - Kyrie won championship. Lebron - Wade won championship. Harden - Paul were in serious contention. KD - Westbrook were in serious contention.

I dont know what is satire in that. Teams that had multiple all stars/all nba players were succesful. If you look at the past champions, they had multiple all stars in their roster. Thats not satire, thats facts.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
Seems like the main difference is our definitions of "generational talent". What is the difference between a generational talent and a perennial all star? Is one higher than the other on a numerical scale? It's a vague term, and we have different standards.

To me it sounds like different ways of saying "He's really good." I will admit to some irritation at those who use the term as if it means "best player to enter the league in the last 20 years."
If you can do things that nobody else in your generation can do (or less than, say, three other players in your generation can do), then you're a generational talent. And no, the criteria definitely isn't "perennial All-Star." LaMarcus Aldridge is a perennial All-Star, but there are forty guys in the league that can do what he does, given the same usage rate. He might not be the best power forward in the state of Texas.

From my point of view, the only reasonable question with respect to whether or not Doncic is a generational talent is, what generation do you put him in? I mean, if you consider him and LeBron James to be in the same generation then, yeah, it'd be hard to argue that he's a generational talent. But I would say that that was using the term incorrectly.
 
I haven't watched many of his games this year but I am curious about his rebounding numbers. He is 12th overall and the only non big in the top 20. The only wing aside from Kawhi in the top 25.

Is it positioning? Is he aggressive? Nose for the ball?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.