2024-25 NBA Thread: Game 7!! (129 Viewers)

[Alex P Keaton]

Crazy that a guy averaging a triple double, 29.6 pts a game, and shoots 57% might not win MVP. Those stats are just silly.

and like 25 of his "missed three point attempts" were heaves as the clock is winding down....a shot many will refuse to take or wait until they hear the horn or see the red light before they let it go as not to negatively affect their shooting percentage....you take away those 25 attempts and his 3 point % jumps from 42% to 45%....which....uhhhhh.... would have led the league...

Jokic has taken 20 end of game heaves, and has made 2 of them. He is currently 41.7% from three (138/331). If you take away the heaves he would be 136/311 or 43.7% which would put him in 5th place.

maybe there are different definitions of heaves.........and you also said "end of game".....to me a long distance shot at the end of any quarter is a heave... ....local broadcast here said it was actually like 28 or more....I was dumbing it down to 25 just in case there isn't something official...

I meant to say end of quarter. Even if it was 28 that makes him 136/303 which still wouldn't lead the league. Anyway, I am just here for the fight

forgot to subtract the "makes"....lol....but 136/303 puts him at .448 percent.....so "almost 45"....think Seth Curry led the league at %45.....either way, think most get the point....he not only shot 57% from the field but improved his 3 point shooting and is also one of the best.....as a 7 foot center...

You would also have to do the same adjustment for every other player to make it an even comparison.

 

[msudaisy26]

What's funny is the years ago, many were clear that they gave Westbrook an MVP because he averaged a triple-double despite the Thunder finishing like 5th or 6th in the West, but I'll get money that most of those same voters will be hypocrites and not give it to Jokic this year (who just became the first center to average a triple-double). And to be clear, no, I don't think averaging a triple-double should guarantee you the MVP, but it will merely show how the standards of the voters change based on who they want to win (and they clearly in the tank for SGA).

It is a little different when Westbrook was the first guy in 55 years to do it in 2017 and now it has happened like four more times since then. It has nothing to do with the standards of who they want to win.

 

[thecatch]

Jokic is the best player, but he's already won 3 and SGA's performance is so awesome and he's having so much team success that I'm totally OK with him getting the award. Being the best player has never been the sole consideration for MVP - I understand and am sympathetic to the argument that it should be, but it isn't.

bolded is always the part of the argument that drives me nuts....people need to not say that because if it's part of your argument most people should stop listening...

It’s part of the overall narrative which has always been part of the consideration. For better or worse.

if people that vote make that part of the their narrative.....they need to not have a vote....

One might argue that people that don’t know how to use ellipses shouldn’t use them either, but that’s just not the world we live in.

 

[Stoneworker]

What's funny is the years ago, many were clear that they gave Westbrook an MVP because he averaged a triple-double despite the Thunder finishing like 5th or 6th in the West, but I'll get money that most of those same voters will be hypocrites and not give it to Jokic this year (who just became the first center to average a triple-double). And to be clear, no, I don't think averaging a triple-double should guarantee you the MVP, but it will merely show how the standards of the voters change based on who they want to win (and they clearly in the tank for SGA).

It is a little different when Westbrook was the first guy in 55 years to do it in 2017 and now it has happened like four more times since then. It has nothing to do with the standards of who they want to win.

wut?

Averaging a triple double for a season has not happened "like four times" since 2017

It has only happened three times in history

 

[Juxtatarot]

You guys are going to freak out when Josh Giddey averages a triple-double one of these years.

 

[msudaisy26]

What's funny is the years ago, many were clear that they gave Westbrook an MVP because he averaged a triple-double despite the Thunder finishing like 5th or 6th in the West, but I'll get money that most of those same voters will be hypocrites and not give it to Jokic this year (who just became the first center to average a triple-double). And to be clear, no, I don't think averaging a triple-double should guarantee you the MVP, but it will merely show how the standards of the voters change based on who they want to win (and they clearly in the tank for SGA).

It is a little different when Westbrook was the first guy in 55 years to do it in 2017 and now it has happened like four more times since then. It has nothing to do with the standards of who they want to win.

wut?

Averaging a triple double for a season has not happened "like four times" since 2017

It has only happened three times in history

Westbrook.has done it 4 times by himself. So check again.

 

[Stoneworker]

What's funny is the years ago, many were clear that they gave Westbrook an MVP because he averaged a triple-double despite the Thunder finishing like 5th or 6th in the West, but I'll get money that most of those same voters will be hypocrites and not give it to Jokic this year (who just became the first center to average a triple-double). And to be clear, no, I don't think averaging a triple-double should guarantee you the MVP, but it will merely show how the standards of the voters change based on who they want to win (and they clearly in the tank for SGA).

It is a little different when Westbrook was the first guy in 55 years to do it in 2017 and now it has happened like four more times since then. It has nothing to do with the standards of who they want to win.

wut?

Averaging a triple double for a season has not happened "like four times" since 2017

It has only happened three times in history

Westbrook.has done it 4 times by himself. So check again.

Three players.

In any event, what's your point? That it's easy or something?

 

[msudaisy26]

What's funny is the years ago, many were clear that they gave Westbrook an MVP because he averaged a triple-double despite the Thunder finishing like 5th or 6th in the West, but I'll get money that most of those same voters will be hypocrites and not give it to Jokic this year (who just became the first center to average a triple-double). And to be clear, no, I don't think averaging a triple-double should guarantee you the MVP, but it will merely show how the standards of the voters change based on who they want to win (and they clearly in the tank for SGA).

It is a little different when Westbrook was the first guy in 55 years to do it in 2017 and now it has happened like four more times since then. It has nothing to do with the standards of who they want to win.

wut?

Averaging a triple double for a season has not happened "like four times" since 2017

It has only happened three times in history

Westbrook.has done it 4 times by himself. So check again.

Three players.

In any event, what's your point? That it's easy or something?

Way to double down.

 

[Stoneworker]

What's funny is the years ago, many were clear that they gave Westbrook an MVP because he averaged a triple-double despite the Thunder finishing like 5th or 6th in the West, but I'll get money that most of those same voters will be hypocrites and not give it to Jokic this year (who just became the first center to average a triple-double). And to be clear, no, I don't think averaging a triple-double should guarantee you the MVP, but it will merely show how the standards of the voters change based on who they want to win (and they clearly in the tank for SGA).

It is a little different when Westbrook was the first guy in 55 years to do it in 2017 and now it has happened like four more times since then. It has nothing to do with the standards of who they want to win.

wut?

Averaging a triple double for a season has not happened "like four times" since 2017

It has only happened three times in history

Westbrook.has done it 4 times by himself. So check again.

Three players.

In any event, what's your point? That it's easy or something?

Way to double down.

Just dumb. Carry on

 

[msudaisy26]

What's funny is the years ago, many were clear that they gave Westbrook an MVP because he averaged a triple-double despite the Thunder finishing like 5th or 6th in the West, but I'll get money that most of those same voters will be hypocrites and not give it to Jokic this year (who just became the first center to average a triple-double). And to be clear, no, I don't think averaging a triple-double should guarantee you the MVP, but it will merely show how the standards of the voters change based on who they want to win (and they clearly in the tank for SGA).

It is a little different when Westbrook was the first guy in 55 years to do it in 2017 and now it has happened like four more times since then. It has nothing to do with the standards of who they want to win.

wut?

Averaging a triple double for a season has not happened "like four times" since 2017

It has only happened three times in history

Westbrook.has done it 4 times by himself. So check again.

Three players.

In any event, what's your point? That it's easy or something?

Way to double down.

What's funny is the years ago, many were clear that they gave Westbrook an MVP because he averaged a triple-double despite the Thunder finishing like 5th or 6th in the West, but I'll get money that most of those same voters will be hypocrites and not give it to Jokic this year (who just became the first center to average a triple-double). And to be clear, no, I don't think averaging a triple-double should guarantee you the MVP, but it will merely show how the standards of the voters change based on who they want to win (and they clearly in the tank for SGA).

It is a little different when Westbrook was the first guy in 55 years to do it in 2017 and now it has happened like four more times since then. It has nothing to do with the standards of who they want to win.

wut?

Averaging a triple double for a season has not happened "like four times" since 2017

It has only happened three times in history

Westbrook.has done it 4 times by himself. So check again.

Three players.

In any event, what's your point? That it's easy or something?

Way to double down.

Just dumb. Carry on

Go back and read the posts slowly and maybe you will get the point. Take your time I will still be here the playoffs are starting later this week.

 

[Stoneworker]

I will still be here the playoffs are starting later this week.

How unfortunate

 

[Long Ball Larry]

What's funny is the years ago, many were clear that they gave Westbrook an MVP because he averaged a triple-double despite the Thunder finishing like 5th or 6th in the West, but I'll get money that most of those same voters will be hypocrites and not give it to Jokic this year (who just became the first center to average a triple-double). And to be clear, no, I don't think averaging a triple-double should guarantee you the MVP, but it will merely show how the standards of the voters change based on who they want to win (and they clearly in the tank for SGA).

There was no other contender that year who is similar to SGA this year, as I recall

 

[Long Ball Larry]

The arguments in this thread have definitely convinced me that people like to argue

 

[GOB]

The arguments in this thread have definitely convinced me that people like to argue

No we don't

 

[Mister CIA]

I'm with you fellers.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

The arguments in this thread have definitely convinced me that people like to argue

No we don't

Why you :shakesfist:

 

[Kev4029]

Looks like the thread is amping up for playoff time!!!

 

[Kev4029]

Anybody that is upset by SGA getting the MVP is not watching enough SGA/OKC. He is having not only an MVP-level season but even as compared to other MVP seasons, it stands out as very good. The combination of statistics, defensive acumen, team success, and availability has been absolutely phenomenal. Finding an argument against him is nearly impossible. That said, Jokic is having arguably the best offensive season in the history of the NBA leading a team that has been hindered by a combination of injuries, mediocre talent, and turmoil, all while being the consensus best player in the NBA. Nearly impossible to find an argument against him as well. Hypothetically, if this would have been Jokic's first MVP win, I think he would have gotten the award, but I think it is fair to the "story" of the NBA to have Shai get the award this season.

I think Jokic's season (or SGA's if he wasn't the presumed winner) will ultimately go down as the best individual season ever to not win the MVP.

 

[FarFromHome]

What's funny is the years ago, many were clear that they gave Westbrook an MVP because he averaged a triple-double despite the Thunder finishing like 5th or 6th in the West, but I'll get money that most of those same voters will be hypocrites and not give it to Jokic this year (who just became the first center to average a triple-double). And to be clear, no, I don't think averaging a triple-double should guarantee you the MVP, but it will merely show how the standards of the voters change based on who they want to win (and they clearly in the tank for SGA).

There was no other contender that year who is similar to SGA this year, as I recall

I think thats a big part of it. Harden was the closest that year and Westbrooks numbers were just better. Imo

 

[Jayrod]

I think Jokic's season (or SGA's if he wasn't the presumed winner) will ultimately go down as the best individual season ever to not win the MVP.

I think this is the crux of the whole issue. I can't fathom a season as good as Jokic's not winning the MVP. SGA is in the same boat.

 

[Moe.]

What's funny is the years ago, many were clear that they gave Westbrook an MVP because he averaged a triple-double despite the Thunder finishing like 5th or 6th in the West, but I'll get money that most of those same voters will be hypocrites and not give it to Jokic this year (who just became the first center to average a triple-double). And to be clear, no, I don't think averaging a triple-double should guarantee you the MVP, but it will merely show how the standards of the voters change based on who they want to win (and they clearly in the tank for SGA).

The narrative was really strong with Westbrook, so on some level I think it’s consistent that the Westbrook voters would also like SGA this year.

 

[Frostillicus]

Ant finishes the year with 4.0 made threes per game and 39% three-point percentage. The only other players to hit those marks in the same season are Steph Curry, Damian Lillard, and Klay Thompson.

 

[scoobus]

Ant finishes the year with 4.0 made threes per game and 39% three-point percentage. The only other players to hit those marks in the same season are Steph Curry, Damian Lillard, and Klay Thompson.

Buddy Hield?

Cool stat regardless.

 

[msudaisy26]

Ant finishes the year with 4.0 made threes per game and 39% three-point percentage. The only other players to hit those marks in the same season are Steph Curry, Damian Lillard, and Klay Thompson.

Buddy Hield?

Cool stat regardless.

Don't forget 2026 Bronny.

 

[Desert_Power]

Anybody that is upset by SGA getting the MVP is not watching enough SGA/OKC. He is having not only an MVP-level season but even as compared to other MVP seasons, it stands out as very good. The combination of statistics, defensive acumen, team success, and availability has been absolutely phenomenal. Finding an argument against him is nearly impossible. That said, Jokic is having arguably the best offensive season in the history of the NBA leading a team that has been hindered by a combination of injuries, mediocre talent, and turmoil, all while being the consensus best player in the NBA. Nearly impossible to find an argument against him as well. Hypothetically, if this would have been Jokic's first MVP win, I think he would have gotten the award, but I think it is fair to the "story" of the NBA to have Shai get the award this season.

I think Jokic's season (or SGA's if he wasn't the presumed winner) will ultimately go down as the best individual season ever to not win the MVP.

I'm not at all upset about SGA winning the award. Nor was I upset about Embiid's. They are great players and the point of the award is to award greatness. They have had seasons worthy of being an MVP.

But I'm pretty sure we're all going to look back on both of those seasons as time goes on and realize that Jokic was the better player. I think we already do with the latter.

 

[Desert_Power]

Lamar Jackson had a better season than Josh Allen too.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I just read that due to the minimum game and minutes per game requirements, that only 15% of the league qualified for consideration of awards/all-nba this year.

 

[Gr00vus]

Bless this current thread title.

 

[Zow]

Lamar Jackson had a better season than Josh Allen too.

I wanted them to be co-MVPs this year FWIW.

SGA and Jokic can share it as well.

I know ties are like kissing your sister, but seeing a deserved winner made a loser is like kissing your brother.

 

[Yo Mama]

Hoping Bronny and Knecht don’t split the rookie of the year votes so somebody else steals the award from one of them.

 

[Jayrod]

Hoping Bronny and Knecht don’t split the rookie of the year votes so somebody else steals the award from one of them.

If you don't knock it off, I'm going to start another Kerr rant.

 

[Kev4029]

I just read that due to the minimum game and minutes per game requirements, that only 15% of the league qualified for consideration of awards/all-nba this year.

The big reason for that is because it isn't only a 65 game requirement, its 65 games where the player played 20 minutes in that game. Outside of All-Defense (which I don't think should be subject to this requirement... maybe make it a requirement for 1st team but not 2nd), there isn't a single player that is actually affected by the 65-game rule.

 

[the moops]

Outside of All-Defense (which I don't think should be subject to this requirement... maybe make it a requirement for 1st team but not 2nd), there isn't a single player that is actually affected by the 65-game rule.

Huh?

 

[Instinctive]

I just read that due to the minimum game and minutes per game requirements, that only 15% of the league qualified for consideration of awards/all-nba this year.

The big reason for that is because it isn't only a 65 game requirement, its 65 games where the player played 20 minutes in that game. Outside of All-Defense (which I don't think should be subject to this requirement... maybe make it a requirement for 1st team but not 2nd), there isn't a single player that is actually affected by the 65-game rule.

Wasn't there some guy on the Lakers that got traded this year that's kind of a first team or second team lock for All-NBA? Imagine if he was the motor of a top 4 seed with an awesome defense trying to defend a Western Conference title...

 

[Anarchy99]

Records for teams with 50+ wins vs. other teams with 50+ wins:

OKC 18-6
BOS 13-8
CLE 13-9
LAL 13-9
HOU 12-11
IND 10-10
DEN 9-14
LAC 7-17
NYK 5-16

Team records and net ratings since 3/1:

OKC 20-3, +13.3
BOS 19-3, +11.4
MIN 17-4, +11.7
LAC 18-5, +11.6
IND 17-7, +5.1
GSW 16-7, +7.3
CHI 15-7, +4.4
CLE 15-8, +4.3
HOU 15-8, +5.9
MIL 15-9, +4.5
ATL 13-9, +3.5
ORL 12-9, +4.6
LAL 13-11, 0.4
NYK 12-11, +2.6
DEN 11-11, 0.0
DET 11-11, +4.4
MEM 10-13, +0.4
SAC 10-14, -1.7
MIA 9-15, +3.3
DAL 7-15, -9.4

 

[SWC]

i wonder if the bucks will deal dame in the offseason i just dont feel like it works which makes me sad take that to the bank brohans

 

[Anarchy99]

i wonder if the bucks will deal dame in the offseason i just dont feel like it works which makes me sad take that to the bank brohans

Couldn't Giannis and Dame opt out over the summer and both become free agents?

 

[thecatch]

i wonder if the bucks will deal dame in the offseason i just dont feel like it works which makes me sad take that to the bank brohans

Couldn't Giannis and Dame opt out over the summer and both become free agents?

No

 

[the moops]

i wonder if the bucks will deal dame in the offseason i just dont feel like it works which makes me sad take that to the bank brohans

Couldn't Giannis and Dame opt out over the summer and both become free agents?

No

Giannis has a player option in 27/28. Dame has a player option in 26/27

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

i wonder if the bucks will deal dame in the offseason i just dont feel like it works which makes me sad take that to the bank brohans

I mean it's possible I suppose

I don't see them getting a return that makes them better. Ignoring his injury issue (which really shouldnt be), with so many apron teams, that contract is so hard to move anyway.

How many teams think getting a Dame puts them over the top? When it just didn't with the Bucks.

Bucks aren't in a good spot. Very well could see Giannis asking out.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Anybody that is upset by SGA getting the MVP is not watching enough SGA/OKC. He is having not only an MVP-level season but even as compared to other MVP seasons, it stands out as very good. The combination of statistics, defensive acumen, team success, and availability has been absolutely phenomenal. Finding an argument against him is nearly impossible. That said, Jokic is having arguably the best offensive season in the history of the NBA leading a team that has been hindered by a combination of injuries, mediocre talent, and turmoil, all while being the consensus best player in the NBA. Nearly impossible to find an argument against him as well. Hypothetically, if this would have been Jokic's first MVP win, I think he would have gotten the award, but I think it is fair to the "story" of the NBA to have Shai get the award this season.

I think Jokic's season (or SGA's if he wasn't the presumed winner) will ultimately go down as the best individual season ever to not win the MVP.

bolded...again this pops up and the argument of "it is what it is" and it is something that people consider is just crazy to me.....just because he has won it before doesn't mean he shouldn't win it again if deserving.....Joker doesn't care about winning the MVP....he just wants championships and then to ride off into the sunset....literally on his horses....but unfortunately when people retire, how many MVP's is usually the second thing people mention.....X NBA Championships, X MVP awards, X all star selections, etc.....so legacy wise when in the discussion of greatest players ever, things like that do matter.....people won't really remember that he should have won it over Embid (which he should of) and people won't remember that he should win it over SGA....

SGA scored a lot....so did Joker....people say SGA is a better defender.....well he isn't even the best defender on his team....(https://craftednba.com/player-traits/defense)....and doesn't draw the toughest assignments....and FWIW Joker ranks higher on this defensive list...besides having a few really high scoring games.....and his team having a better overall record.....he really didn't do anything that special.....Joker meanwhile had 30/20/20.....and a 60 point triple double...34 overall in 70 games...Joker dominated games in many ways.....SGA scored.....and his team had a better record because he had a better supporting cast around him....I think we all know what is going on here....they want somebody that is different for a lot of other reasons as well that don't have anything to do with the game like "if Joker hadn't already won three" and some other stuff.......oh well...they both played well, but IMO I think we are kidding ourselves when you look at the numbers and the impact on the entire game...oh well on to the playoffs....should be great in the West...

 

[Kev4029]

Outside of All-Defense (which I don't think should be subject to this requirement... maybe make it a requirement for 1st team but not 2nd), there isn't a single player that is actually affected by the 65-game rule.

Huh?

Not a single player practically affected. Nobody would have gotten the votes to land a real award that was made ineligible because of the 65 game rule.

 

[Kev4029]

Anybody that is upset by SGA getting the MVP is not watching enough SGA/OKC. He is having not only an MVP-level season but even as compared to other MVP seasons, it stands out as very good. The combination of statistics, defensive acumen, team success, and availability has been absolutely phenomenal. Finding an argument against him is nearly impossible. That said, Jokic is having arguably the best offensive season in the history of the NBA leading a team that has been hindered by a combination of injuries, mediocre talent, and turmoil, all while being the consensus best player in the NBA. Nearly impossible to find an argument against him as well. Hypothetically, if this would have been Jokic's first MVP win, I think he would have gotten the award, but I think it is fair to the "story" of the NBA to have Shai get the award this season.

I think Jokic's season (or SGA's if he wasn't the presumed winner) will ultimately go down as the best individual season ever to not win the MVP.

bolded...again this pops up and the argument of "it is what it is" and it is something that people consider is just crazy to me.....just because he has won it before doesn't mean he shouldn't win it again if deserving.....Joker doesn't care about winning the MVP....he just wants championships and then to ride off into the sunset....literally on his horses....but unfortunately when people retire, how many MVP's is usually the second thing people mention.....X NBA Championships, X MVP awards, X all star selections, etc.....so legacy wise when in the discussion of greatest players ever, things like that do matter.....people won't really remember that he should have won it over Embid (which he should of) and people won't remember that he should win it over SGA....

SGA scored a lot....so did Joker....people say SGA is a better defender.....well he isn't even the best defender on his team....(https://craftednba.com/player-traits/defense)....and doesn't draw the toughest assignments....and FWIW Joker ranks higher on this defensive list...besides having a few really high scoring games.....and his team having a better overall record.....he really didn't do anything that special.....Joker meanwhile had 30/20/20.....and a 60 point triple double...34 overall in 70 games...Joker dominated games in many ways.....SGA scored.....and his team had a better record because he had a better supporting cast around him....I think we all know what is going on here....they want somebody that is different for a lot of other reasons as well that don't have anything to do with the game like "if Joker hadn't already won three" and some other stuff.......oh well...they both played well, but IMO I think we are kidding ourselves when you look at the numbers and the impact on the entire game...oh well on to the playoffs....should be great in the West...

This hurts my eyes.

You may not take into account the "story" or narrative of the season and the league into account but a large portion of the voters do. Getting riled up about that fact isn't going change anything so better to just accept it.

 

[the moops]

Outside of All-Defense (which I don't think should be subject to this requirement... maybe make it a requirement for 1st team but not 2nd), there isn't a single player that is actually affected by the 65-game rule.

Huh?

Not a single player practically affected. Nobody would have gotten the votes to land a real award that was made ineligible because of the 65 game rule.

Yea I think this actually is true. I misconstrued what you were saying. Only debatable one is maybe KD

 

[Instinctive]

Outside of All-Defense (which I don't think should be subject to this requirement... maybe make it a requirement for 1st team but not 2nd), there isn't a single player that is actually affected by the 65-game rule.

Huh?

Not a single player practically affected. Nobody would have gotten the votes to land a real award that was made ineligible because of the 65 game rule.

Yea I think this actually is true. I misconstrued what you were saying. Only debatable one is maybe KD

Umm...Luka Doncic? Am I missing something lol

 

[Moe.]

I think they are saying that nobody would vote for Luka even if you took the restriction away. Not that Luka wouldn’t make it if he had played 15 more games.

 

[the moops]

Outside of All-Defense (which I don't think should be subject to this requirement... maybe make it a requirement for 1st team but not 2nd), there isn't a single player that is actually affected by the 65-game rule.

Huh?

Not a single player practically affected. Nobody would have gotten the votes to land a real award that was made ineligible because of the 65 game rule.

Yea I think this actually is true. I misconstrued what you were saying. Only debatable one is maybe KD

Umm...Luka Doncic? Am I missing something lol

Yes. He only played 50 games. Nobody is voting for him for all NBA at only 50 games played

 

[Instinctive]

Outside of All-Defense (which I don't think should be subject to this requirement... maybe make it a requirement for 1st team but not 2nd), there isn't a single player that is actually affected by the 65-game rule.

Huh?

Not a single player practically affected. Nobody would have gotten the votes to land a real award that was made ineligible because of the 65 game rule.

Yea I think this actually is true. I misconstrued what you were saying. Only debatable one is maybe KD

Umm...Luka Doncic? Am I missing something lol

Yes. He only played 50 games. Nobody is voting for him for all NBA at only 50 games played

We can just agree to disagree that a top five player averaging 28-8-8 wasn't gonna make an All NBA team with 50 games played.

I'm ok being on the other side of that one.

 

[Kev4029]

Outside of All-Defense (which I don't think should be subject to this requirement... maybe make it a requirement for 1st team but not 2nd), there isn't a single player that is actually affected by the 65-game rule.

Huh?

Not a single player practically affected. Nobody would have gotten the votes to land a real award that was made ineligible because of the 65 game rule.

Yea I think this actually is true. I misconstrued what you were saying. Only debatable one is maybe KD

Umm...Luka Doncic? Am I missing something lol

Regarding Durant, I think he may have caught some votes for all-nba but with the way the Suns' season worked out, I can't imagine he would have been highly considered.

Regarding Doncic, I can't think of a single player that has been named All-NBA with 50 games played in an 82 game season. He was also not nearly as good when he did play this year.

 

[Instinctive]

I think they are saying that nobody would vote for Luka even if you took the restriction away. Not that Luka wouldn’t make it if he had played 15 more games.

I didn't pick up on that because it's such a dumb take it didn't cross my mind.