When Steve Nash and Nikola Jokic have more NBA MVP's combined than Kobe and Shaq

[Lebron23]

https://fadeawayworld.net/.image/t_share/MTgwMTMyODc0NTUzMDA5Mjc0/nuggets-coach-on-nikola-jokic--hes-the-steve-nash-of-bigs.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/61/79/15/617915bb0eb3e32163b7cfd075c7a8d7.jpg

[warriorfan]

If you stacked up all the mvp trophies won by steve nash and nikola jokic they would measure taller than op

[nayte]

If you swapped those four players with Jeff Hornacek would the Jazz beat the bulls?

[post]

when the advanced stats favor lebron or kg over nash but no one gives a shit

[ImKobe]

Nash's own teammate Shawn Marion led the team in everything but points, including most of the advanced stuff in '06 but no one gave a shit lol. The NBA had a clear agenda with the Nash MVPs after the Brawl happened. They were trying to move away from the hip hop/thug image they had attained.

[Johnny32]

not sure why kobe is being thrown in here. you could argue he was never the best or most valuable player in the lg. could also argue his lone mvp was more of a career achievement award than anything else.

[tontoz]

Kobe and Shaq were on the same team in their primes which worked against them for MVP votes.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I disagreed with Nash selections but Jokic statistical dominance is hard to argue.

[ImKobe]

not sure why kobe is being thrown in here. you could argue he was never the best or most valuable player in the lg. could also argue his lone mvp was more of a career achievement award than anything else.

They were at 30 - 16 with 2.5 games behind the #1 seed before the Gasol trade. KB put in work that year and you can't tell me the best player on the #1 seed (who played all 82) doesn't deserve to win MVP. It also helped that KB had a great run post-ASB with 29/7/6/2/1 58%TS averages and outplayed CP3 H2H for the #1 seed when it came down to one of the last games of the RS.

KG was the only other candidate besides CP0 but he missed 11 games so he wasn't going to win it. KB won the MVP in a landslide lol.

[Axe]

Nash's own teammate Shawn Marion led the team in everything but points, including most of the advanced stuff in '06 but no one gave a shit lol. The NBA had a clear agenda with the Nash MVPs after the Brawl happened. They were trying to move away from the hip hop/thug image they had attained.
Lol it took kobe more than a decade to garner either a league or finals mvp award and this hurt his spot in the all-time great rankings.

[ImKobe]

Lol it took kobe more than a decade to garner either a league or finals mvp award and this hurt his spot in the all-time great rankings.

Not really. He's widely considered top 5 all-time and the best at his position after Jordan. Media awards don't change that. I think he did well with the cards he was dealt with 3 years of his prime wasted on bad teams.

[ArbitraryWater]

Kobe doesnt even have any further MVP arguments.

The closest MVP call of his career went his way lol.

[ImKobe]

Kobe doesnt even have any further MVP arguments.

The closest MVP call of his career went his way lol.

82 first place votes, not like anyone else was close in voting.

Most ppl agree he deserved '06 for carrying those D-league bums to the 6th best record in the Conference with how dominant he was in the 2nd half of that season.

[hold this L]

They were deserved, it doesn't change that Shaq and Kobe are much, much better players overall in the history of the NBA.

[ShawkFactory]

Nash's own teammate Shawn Marion led the team in everything but points, including most of the advanced stuff in '06 but no one gave a shit lol. The NBA had a clear agenda with the Nash MVPs after the Brawl happened. They were trying to move away from the hip hop/thug image they had attained.

They went from 29 to 62 wins between 04 and 05. That's why Nash won the MVP. Yes they added Joe Johnson and Richardson, and Amare was a year older and healthier.

But you can't beat that narrative.


Not really. He's widely considered top 5 all-time and the best at his position after Jordan. Media awards don't change that. I think he did well with the cards he was dealt with 3 years of his prime wasted on bad teams.

Not really. Some put him there. Many don't.

[SouBeachTalents]

Not really. He's widely considered top 5 all-time and the best at his position after Jordan. Media awards don't change that. I think he did well with the cards he was dealt with 3 years of his prime wasted on bad teams.
Nah, And the "cards he was dealt", dude had prime Shaq the first 8 years of his career, then the best or 2nd best supporting cast in the league from '08-'10 :lol Kobe had a better roster situation in his prime than the vast majority of players have had in their careers. And whether you like it or not, Kobe played a big role in the state of the Lakers from '05-'07 demanding that Shaq be off the team.

[ArbitraryWater]

82 first place votes, not like anyone else was close in voting.

Most ppl agree he deserved '06 for carrying those D-league bums to the 6th best record in the Conference with how dominant he was in the 2nd half of that season.


Its still the closest call of his career.

2008 Chris Paul has a better case for MVP than Kobe has any other year.


And absolutely not "most people agree he deserved 06" stop making stuff up. Kobe was never even in the conversation. And the media loved Kobe in 06 and compared him to MJ all the time.

[WhiteKyrie]

MJ should’ve had 1989
MJ should’ve had 1990
MJ should’ve had 1997
Shaq should’ve had 2002
Nash should’ve had 2004
Shaq should’ve had 2005
Kobe should’ve had 2006
Nash should’ve had 2007
Kobe should’ve had 2009

MJ has 8x
Shaq has 3x
Nash has 2x
Kobe has 3x

IMO that is perfection. Dirk shouldn’t have any IMO

[1987_Lakers]

MJ should’ve had 1989
MJ should’ve had 1990
MJ should’ve had 1997
Shaq should’ve had 2002
Nash should’ve had 2004
Shaq should’ve had 2005
Kobe should’ve had 2006
Nash should’ve had 2007
Kobe should’ve had 2009

MJ has 8x
Shaq has 3x
Nash has 2x
Kobe has 3x

IMO that is perfection. Dirk shouldn’t have any IMO

Beyond idiotic. A guy who didn't recieve a single MVP vote in 2004 deserved the MVP.

And Kobe had zero argument for 2009.

[ShawkFactory]

MJ should’ve had 1989
MJ should’ve had 1990
MJ should’ve had 1997
Shaq should’ve had 2002
Nash should’ve had 2004
Shaq should’ve had 2005
Kobe should’ve had 2006
Nash should’ve had 2007
Kobe should’ve had 2009

MJ has 8x
Shaq has 3x
Nash has 2x
Kobe has 3x

IMO that is perfection. Dirk shouldn’t have any IMO

Both of these are bad takes. I'll allow the rest.

[WhiteKyrie]

Beyond idiotic. A guy who didn't recieve a single MVP vote in 2004 deserved the MVP.

And Kobe had zero argument for 2009.
How did Kobe have zero argument? Led them to 65 wins in by far the superior conference and the title for your “favorite franchise” and a ring.

Nash I messed up, he won in 2005 and 2006, and didn’t deserve either really IMO. 2004 def belonged to KG. My bad.

Acting like Kobe doesn’t have a beyond legit argument for 2009 is insanely stupid. But I have no prob with Bron winning it.

[DMAVS41]

82 first place votes, not like anyone else was close in voting.

Most ppl agree he deserved '06 for carrying those D-league bums to the 6th best record in the Conference with how dominant he was in the 2nd half of that season.

Most people do not agree with that.

If anyone deserved the MVP instead of Nash in 06...it was Dirk.

60 wins with that team while playing 81 games at 27/9/3. Historically, that should be your MVP. People just loved Nash at the time and his value got a tad over-rated in my opinion.

Kobe doesn't even have a great argument over Lebron to be honest. Lebron's overall numbers were just as good and his team won 5 more games.

[ShawkFactory]

How did Kobe have zero argument? Led them to 65 wins in by far the superior conference and the title for your “favorite franchise” and a ring.

Nash I messed up, he won in 2005 and 2006, and didn’t deserve either really IMO. 2004 def belonged to KG. My bad.

Acting like Kobe doesn’t have a beyond legit argument for 2009 is insanely stupid. But I have no prob with Bron winning it.

I'm not going to be one of those guys who says Kobe had zero argument in 09 because you can certainly make a case. But saying he "should've" won it is where you lose me. Bron's case was stronger.

[SouBeachTalents]

MJ should’ve had 1989
MJ should’ve had 1990
MJ should’ve had 1997
Shaq should’ve had 2002
Nash should’ve had 2004
Shaq should’ve had 2005
Kobe should’ve had 2006
Nash should’ve had 2007
Kobe should’ve had 2009

MJ has 8x
Shaq has 3x
Nash has 2x
Kobe has 3x

IMO that is perfection. Dirk shouldn’t have any IMO
Duncan won as many games in '02 as Shaq did with a top 5 player, so not seeing Shaq's argument for MVP.

I literally don't understand the Nash choice in '04, he didn't even make the all-star game :lol

Dirk won more games with a worse supporting cast than Nash did in '07, so not seeing Nash's argument for that year.

'09 has been discussed so many times, you already know the argument will be LeBron won more games with a much worse team while having better production and advanced metrics across the board.

One that I never see get brought up is Harden in 2015. Yes, Steph won 11 more games, but look at that Houston roster in 2015, it's absolutely nothing to write home about, and his best teammate in past prime Dwight missed half the season, yet he still won 56 games in a brutal conference.

[DMAVS41]

Duncan won as many games in '02 as Shaq did with a top 5 player, so not seeing Shaq's argument for MVP.

I literally don't understand the Nash choice in '04, he didn't even make the all-star game :lol

Dirk won more games with a worse supporting cast than Nash did in '07, so not seeing Nash's argument for that year.

'09 has been discussed so many times, you already know the argument will be LeBron won more games with a much worse team while having better production and advanced metrics across the board.

One that I never see get brought up is Harden in 2015. Yes, Steph won 11 more games, but look at that Houston roster in 2015, it's absolutely nothing to write home about, and his best teammate in past prime Dwight missed half the season, yet he still won 56 games in a brutal conference.

Someone arguing Nash in 04 is maybe the most absurd thing I've ever seen on here. I'm assuming it is just a mistake, but Nash honestly might have been the 3rd best player on the 04 Mavs. A team that didn't fit right with additions of Walker/Jamison...defensively, offensively they were one of the best ever, but overall that team underachieved and Dirk was clearly a better player than Nash. Nash wasn't even close to the MVP of his own underachieving team...let alone the entire damn league.

[iamgine]

I don't see the problem. Both Nash and Jokic deserved it.

[ImKobe]

Its still the closest call of his career.

2008 Chris Paul has a better case for MVP than Kobe has any other year.


And absolutely not "most people agree he deserved 06" stop making stuff up. Kobe was never even in the conversation. And the media loved Kobe in 06 and compared him to MJ all the time.

You have 0 clue lol. Kobe had a better case for MVP in '09 than CP3 ever did, but Lebron's case was that much better that year. KB had the 4th most top 5 MVP finishes in league history.

In '06 KB had the 2nd most first place votes but was left off many ballots by people because of the Colorado case, don't act like everyone in the media loved him. Even Bill Simmons admits that KB deserved MVP in '06 and he's the biggest Kobe/Lakers hater in the media. Now people admit it years later but KB definitely wasn't a media darling at the time, the players & coaches all had his back but the voters didn't

[Kblaze8855]

Very few people at the time were clamoring for either one of them to win the years they didn’t. Wasn’t widely considered an outrage or anything. There are always big-time fans or isolated media who get bent out of shape but off the top of my head? The only time either of them were even close to winning it other than the two years they did was Shaq in 2005. Not like they were close and got narrowly defeated by foul play a bunch of times.

What did they play a combined 35 years or so? They didn’t really get in the race that many times.

A top 5 finish isn’t being close. I’m pretty sure Peja and Joakim Noah had top-five finishes. Doesnt mean they were seriously considered.

[ArbitraryWater]

You have 0 clue lol. Kobe had a better case for MVP in '09 than CP3 ever did, but Lebron's case was that much better that year. KB had the 4th most top 5 MVP finishes in league history.

In '06 KB had the 2nd most first place votes but was left off many ballots by people because of the Colorado case, don't act like everyone in the media loved him. Even Bill Simmons admits that KB deserved MVP in '06 and he's the biggest Kobe/Lakers hater in the media. Now people admit it years later but KB definitely wasn't a media darling at the time, the players & coaches all had his back but the voters didn't


Its relative you dumb ****. How stupid are you? :oldlol:


Not who had the better season.

2008 Paul had a better case to be MVP THAT YEAR, than Kobe any other year.



Bill Simmons is wrong on all kinds of things and ranks Kobe pretty high all things considered. What a shit argument. Bill also doesnt particulary care for Dirk.

[tontoz]

Nash in '05 was the biggest controversy i remember regarding Shaq-Kobe MVP voting. Nash benefited from the style of bball the Suns played which was very popular among fans and the media, aided by the rules change regarding the hand check.

In fairness though Shaq wasn't exactly at his peak in '05. His decline was already starting.

[ArbitraryWater]

MJ should’ve had 1989
MJ should’ve had 1990
MJ should’ve had 1997
Shaq should’ve had 2002
Nash should’ve had 2004
Shaq should’ve had 2005
Kobe should’ve had 2006
Nash should’ve had 2007
Kobe should’ve had 2009

MJ has 8x
Shaq has 3x
Nash has 2x
Kobe has 3x

IMO that is perfection. Dirk shouldn’t have any IMO


You say the dumbest shit forreal

[ImKobe]

Its relative you dumb ****. How stupid are you? :oldlol:


Not who had the better season.

2008 Paul had a better case to be MVP THAT YEAR, than Kobe any other year.



Bill Simmons is wrong on all kinds of things and ranks Kobe pretty high all things considered. What a shit argument. Bill also doesnt particulary care for Dirk.

He ranks Kobe lower than most and was a massive hater at the time and even he admits KB got robbed. The issue with Dirk is that while he was efficient, he didn't carry the same load on a consistent basis like KB or Wade or Bran in the mid/late 2000s.

[SouBeachTalents]

Its relative you dumb ****. How stupid are you? :oldlol:


Not who had the better season.

2008 Paul had a better case to be MVP THAT YEAR, than Kobe any other year.



Bill Simmons is wrong on all kinds of things and ranks Kobe pretty high all things considered. What a shit argument. Bill also doesnt particulary care for Dirk.
The dumbest Bill Simmons take bar none was claiming Shaq was the most underrated superstar ever while saying he ranked him 13th all time :oldlol:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYsxZJRtrz0&t&ab_channel=BillSimmons

[WhiteKyrie]

You say the dumbest shit forreal

Nash’s best season was 2007 dumb ass. They would’ve been in the Finals dog walking that Cavs for an easy ring if it wasn’t for a suspension.

Meanwhile Dirk got outplayed by Stephen Jackson with a 60+ win team losing to an 8th seed in the first round. What would a German snitch know about basketball anyway?

The MVP embarrassingly accepting the award in a press conference and not in the conference finals, isn’t the MVP.

I don’t care how much rationalization about it being a regular season award, total bullshit. If you’re not at minimum, making the second round of the playoffs, you definitely weren't the MVP. Not with a 60+ win team and massive amounts of help.

Only exception to that rule would be Kobe in 2006 and Westbrick in 2017.

Hell, Dirk would tell you that himself, he basically has implied that multiple times. You could see the embarrassment on his face, accepting the award in a press conference, while the second round of the playoffs and beyond was happening literally, the worst MVP of all time.

[WhiteKyrie]

CP3 def had an argument for 2008. Would’ve been fine with him winning, but nah, Kobe’s season was superior and he was clearly still the best player in the league. 2009 became arguable with LeBron. 2010 slight edge to LeBron, then going forward he headed into his decline.

[SouBeachTalents]

Nash’s best season was 2007 dumb ass. They would’ve been in the Finals dog walking that Cavs if it wasn’t for a suspension. Meanwhile Dirk got outplayed by Stephen Jackson with a 60+ win team losing to an 8th seed in the first round. What would a German snitch know about basketball anyway?

The MVP embarrassingly accepting the award in a press conference and not in the conference finals, isn’t the MVP.

I don’t care how much rationalization about it being a regular season award, total bullshit. If you’re not at minimum, making the second round of the playoffs, you definitely weren't the MVP.

Hell, Dirk would tell you that himself, he basically has implied that multiple times. You could see the embarrassment on his face, accepting the award in a press conference, while the second round of the playoffs and beyond was happening literally, the worst MVP of all time.
The playoffs have literally nothing to do with MVP, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Curry was atrocious in the '16 Finals, doesn't change the fact he was the deserved unanimous MVP.

[DMAVS41]

He ranks Kobe lower than most and was a massive hater at the time and even he admits KB got robbed. The issue with Dirk is that while he was efficient, the didn't carry the same load on a consistent basis like KB or Wade or Bran in the mid/late 2000s.

The MVP historically cares about team wins as well, not just numbers. You can't ignore that in 06...Dirk's team won 15 more games than Kobe's team...and lets not start pretending that it was some stacked roster with a bunch of all-nba style help.

When Kobe won in 2008...in which I thought he deserved (although Paul also had a solid argument)...the Lakers won 57 games and his numbers were pretty similar overall to Dirk's on 06.

08 Kobe...28/6/5 (57%TS)...57 wins
06 Dirk...27/9/3 (59% TS)...60 wins

Acting like there is some huge difference in "carrying the load" simply isn't true.

[DMAVS41]

Nash’s best season was 2007 dumb ass. They would’ve been in the Finals dog walking that Cavs for an easy ring if it wasn’t for a suspension.

Meanwhile Dirk got outplayed by Stephen Jackson with a 60+ win team losing to an 8th seed in the first round. What would a German snitch know about basketball anyway?

The MVP embarrassingly accepting the award in a press conference and not in the conference finals, isn’t the MVP.

I don’t care how much rationalization about it being a regular season award, total bullshit. If you’re not at minimum, making the second round of the playoffs, you definitely weren't the MVP. Not with a 60+ win team and massive amounts of help.

Only exception to that rule would be Kobe in 2006 and Westbrick in 2017.

Hell, Dirk would tell you that himself, he basically has implied that multiple times. You could see the embarrassment on his face, accepting the award in a press conference, while the second round of the playoffs and beyond was happening literally, the worst MVP of all time.

What does that have to do with MVP? It's a regular season award.

Also, one could just say the same thing about Nash in 06 when he won MVP. Who did Nash lose to again in the playoffs? Oh, it was Dirk...LOL

[RRR3]

Not really. He's widely considered top 5 all-time and the best at his position after Jordan. Media awards don't change that. I think he did well with the cards he was dealt with 3 years of his prime wasted on bad teams.
This explains a lot. You live in a fantasy world.

[Dbrog]

What does that have to do with MVP? It's a regular season award.

Also, one could just say the same thing about Nash in 06 when he won MVP. Who did Nash lose to again in the playoffs? Oh, it was Dirk...LOL

Yes exactly. Idk why people even value MVPs highly. I don't really care what people do in the regular season. The award has been a scam for a long time anyway and has usually been, "who was the best player on the team with the best record?" That has literally nothing to do with the best player in the league

[RRR3]

LeBron in 2009 was one of the most clear cut MVPs in recent memory it’s insane people try to argue it. 66 wins with scrubs :bowdown:

[ImKobe]

The MVP historically cares about team wins as well, not just numbers. You can't ignore that in 06...Dirk's team won 15 more games than Kobe's team...and lets not start pretending that it was some stacked roster with a bunch of all-nba style help.

When Kobe won in 2008...in which I thought he deserved (although Paul also had a solid argument)...the Lakers won 57 games and his numbers were pretty similar overall to Dirk's on 06.

08 Kobe...28/6/5 (57%TS)...57 wins
06 Dirk...27/9/3 (59% TS)...60 wins

Acting like there is some huge difference in "carrying the load" simply isn't true.

The competition was a lot tougher in '08 and it came down to the Final stretch of the season and KB delivered. Kobe got them to 30 - 16 pre-Gasol and had to weather the storm after the Bynum injury against Memphis and then went on a great run post-ASB with 6 teams fighting for the #1 spot and only being separated by 3 games at the end of the season. It was a really tough WC in '08, the '06 season doesn't come close in that regard IMO. The difference is more like ~2 ppg and ~3 apg but Dirk had a great year so this isn't about discrediting his season by any means, Nash is the one who got way more credit that year when he had a much better team than Dirk and Kobe.

[ImKobe]

This explains a lot. You live in a fantasy world.

I live outside of the ISH/RGM bubble. Most people would agree that KB is somewhere around top 5 all-time. When you look at sources where thousands of people have voted he's almost always been top 5 and that's been going on for over a decade lol.

[RRR3]

I live outside of the ISH/RGM bubble. Most people would agree that KB is somewhere around top 5 all-time. When you look at sources where thousands of people have voted he's almost always been top 5 and that's been going on for over a decade lol.
Most people think LeBron is top 2 and I know you don’t agree with that. So you can’t pick and choose when to appeal to the sentiment of the average casual fan.

[ImKobe]

Most people think LeBron is top 2 and I know you don’t agree with that. So you can’t pick and choose when to appeal to the sentiment of the average casual fan.

I personally don't but a lot of people put Bran higher up over the retired guys because he's still in the league so it is what it is. KB was ranked higher in 2010-13 than he is now because we hadn't seen him decline yet, same will likely happen with Bran unless he wins another ring as a star player.

[RRR3]

I personally don't but a lot of people put Bran higher up over the retired guys because he's still in the league so it is what it is. KB was ranked higher in 2010-13 than he is now because we hadn't seen him decline yet, same will likely happen with Bran unless he wins another ring as a star player.
https://media.tenor.com/BzdybKbJj7gAAAAd/moving-goalpost.gif

[1987_Lakers]

I personally don't but a lot of people put Bran higher up over the retired guys because he's still in the league so it is what it is. KB was ranked higher in 2010-13 than he is now because we hadn't seen him decline yet, same will likely happen with Bran unless he wins another ring as a star player.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1123731&sid=c12271d8fbc1e39314d2218c1fc5c625

Kobe #10 back in 2011. He was voted #11 by ISH like a year ago.

[SouBeachTalents]

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1123731&sid=c12271d8fbc1e39314d2218c1fc5c625

Kobe #10 back in 2011. He was voted #11 by ISH like a year ago.
But RealGM & ISH don't count.

[tontoz]

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1123731&sid=c12271d8fbc1e39314d2218c1fc5c625

Kobe #10 back in 2011. He was voted #11 by ISH like a year ago.


Yeah I don't remember any time when Kobe was considered consensus top 10. I've typically seen him ranked 10-13.

[Hey Yo]

Nash in '05 was the biggest controversy i remember regarding Shaq-Kobe MVP voting. Nash benefited from the style of bball the Suns played which was very popular among fans and the media, aided by the rules change regarding the hand check.

In fairness though Shaq wasn't exactly at his peak in '05. His decline was already starting.

Shaq wasn't playing for LA in 05.... unless I'm reading it wrong and you're implying something else.

[1987_Lakers]

Yeah I don't remember any time when Kobe was considered consensus top 10. I've typically seen him ranked 10-13.

I remember the big debate after he won his 09 and 10 titles was if he belongs in the top 10. I'd say during that time most people had him top 9-11. Top 5? Was never a discussion among real fans in general. ImKobe does in fact live in a fantasy land.

[WhiteKyrie]

Yes exactly. Idk why people even value MVPs highly. I don't really care what people do in the regular season. The award has been a scam for a long time anyway and has usually been, "who was the best player on the team with the best record?" That has literally nothing to do with the best player in the league

Agreed. If that was the case it would be more accurately represented if players voted on it

1987 - 1993: Jordan 7x
1994 and 1995: Hakeem 2x
1996 - 1998: Jordan 3x
1999 - 2002: Shaq 4x
2003 - 2005: Duncan 3x
2006 - 2008: Kobe 3x
2009 - 2015: LeBron 7x
2016 - 2019: KD / Curry 4x
2020 - 2023: Giannis 4x

Hyper accurate, agree?

[tontoz]

Shaq wasn't playing for LA in 05.... unless I'm reading it wrong and you're implying something else.

Shaq played most of his prime with Kobe, who is arguably the 2nd best SG of all time. It is a lot harder to make the case for Shaq being the MVP when his teammate is the best SG in the league.

Shaq wasn't as good after he left LA. In '05 MVP voters could vote for Nash or a declining Shaq, who was still a great player but not the force he was with LA. That made it a lot easier to vote for Nash.

[WhiteKyrie]

Shaq played most of his prime with Kobe, who is arguably the 2nd best SG of all time. It is a lot harder to make the case for Shaq being the MVP when his teammate is the best SG in the league.

Shaq wasn't as good after he left LA. In '05 MVP voters could vote for Nash or a declining Shaq, who was still a great player but not the force he was with LA. That made it a lot easier to vote for Nash.

Wade was also clearly Miami’s best player by the 2005 playoffs

[WhiteKyrie]

Agreed. If that was the case it would be more accurately represented if players voted on it

1987 - 1993: Jordan 7x
1994 and 1995: Hakeem 2x
1996 - 1998: Jordan 3x
1999 - 2002: Shaq 4x
2003 - 2005: Duncan 3x
2006 - 2008: Kobe 3x
2009 - 2015: LeBron 7x
2016 - 2019: KD / Curry 4x
2020 - 2023: Giannis 4x

Hyper accurate, agree?
This basically would be a pretty good modern to post modern NBA hierarchy of greatness and dominance IMO for tanking players

1) MJ
2) LeBron
3) Shaq / KD / Curry / Giannis
4) Duncan / Kobe
5) Hakeem

[DMAVS41]

The competition was a lot tougher in '08 and it came down to the Final stretch of the season and KB delivered. Kobe got them to 30 - 16 pre-Gasol and had to weather the storm after the Bynum injury against Memphis and then went on a great run post-ASB with 6 teams fighting for the #1 spot and only being separated by 3 games at the end of the season. It was a really tough WC in '08, the '06 season doesn't come close in that regard IMO. The difference is more like ~2 ppg and ~3 apg but Dirk had a great year so this isn't about discrediting his season by any means, Nash is the one who got way more credit that year when he had a much better team than Dirk and Kobe.

I disagree.

I could come up with similar things. Dirk had to deal with Stack, Howard, Harris, and Daniels all missing a bunch of games.

This is why people get annoyed with Kobe fans...they legit think putting up 28/6/5 on worse efficiency and winning 57 games is completely different than putting up 27/9/3 and winning 60 games. We can quibble about who was better based on circumstances, but there is essentially no difference.

In addition, the Lakers were slightly better without Kobe than the Mavericks were without Dirk. The Lakers were +2 points per 100 without Kobe and the Mavs were +.2 without Dirk.

End of the day...there just wasn't a difference of note objectively. Dirk had as good as overall numbers and won 3 more games with a team that was slightly worse without him than the Lakers were without Kobe. MVP level stuff and to pretend otherwise is biased.

And, to address your argument about the tougher conference in 08...cool...the Mavs won 3 more games. How much harder are you arguing it was? 3 games harder, which would be a lot, and you have the same record. :confusedshrug:

[tontoz]

Wade was also clearly Miami’s best player by the 2005 playoffs


Yeah young Wade was definitely elite and would also make it harder to vote for Shaq.

[SouBeachTalents]

This basically would be a pretty good modern to post modern NBA hierarchy of greatness and dominance IMO for tanking players

1) MJ
2) LeBron
3) Shaq / KD / Curry / Giannis
4) Duncan / Kobe
5) Hakeem
Nah. Jordan/LeBron/Shaq/Hakeem are, imo, the clear 4 most dominant players of the last 30 years. Giannis could potentially join the ranks depending on how the next couple of years play out. All I know is Hakeem is for sure not in the 5th tier :lol

And if this is all time ranking, no way are Duncan, Kobe & Hakeem a tier below KD, Curry & Giannis.

[DMAVS41]

This basically would be a pretty good modern to post modern NBA hierarchy of greatness and dominance IMO for tanking players

1) MJ
2) LeBron
3) Shaq / KD / Curry / Giannis
4) Duncan / Kobe
5) Hakeem

What the hell has KD done to be on a level higher than Duncan and Kobe?

[WhiteKyrie]

Nah. Jordan/LeBron/Shaq/Hakeem are, imo, the clear 4 most dominant players of the last 30 years. Giannis could potentially join the ranks depending on how the next couple of years play out. All I know is Hakeem is for sure not in the 5th tier :lol

And if this is all time ranking, no way are Duncan, Kobe & Hakeem a tier below KD, Curry & Giannis.

Yea that’s basically the list but more accurately broken down in terms of per year general consensus best player. In fact it’s really on point.

[WhiteKyrie]

What the hell has KD done to be on a level higher than Duncan and Kobe?

You could split the difference between the two and each give them 2 seasons a piece

[FKAri]

Yes exactly. Idk why people even value MVPs highly. I don't really care what people do in the regular season. The award has been a scam for a long time anyway and has usually been, "who was the best player on the team with the best record?" That has literally nothing to do with the best player in the league

I interpret it as who had the most productive regular season. Who output the most winning value over the course of a regular season. It is hard to separate a player from a team because it's possible it's a guy on a terrible team. But the voters don't even seem to try to do that. A lot of it comes from them and the league wanting to reward winning.


Agreed. If that was the case it would be more accurately represented if players voted on it

1987 - 1993: Jordan 7x
1994 and 1995: Hakeem 2x
1996 - 1998: Jordan 3x
1999 - 2002: Shaq 4x
2003 - 2005: Duncan 3x
2006 - 2008: Kobe 3x
2009 - 2015: LeBron 7x
2016 - 2019: KD / Curry 4x
2020 - 2023: Giannis 4x

Hyper accurate, agree?

Not necessarily because the best players in the league especially when they are already established play on cruise control in the regular season. And they'll turn it up in the playoffs. That guy shouldn't win regular season MVP just because we know how good he is or could be. Also if a guy has a flukey season where everything goes right and plays out of his mind but we know he's not as good as another guy based on historical trends he should still win it because he was better for that duration of time and that's all that matters. Jokic rightfully won the last couple years.

[Walk on Water]

I disagreed with Nash selections but Jokic statistical dominance is hard to argue.



The MVP is a regular season award but the game is about winning and when he never wins when it counts, that always conforms that his stats are at least questionable

[tontoz]

The MVP is a regular season award but the game is about winning and when he never wins when it counts, that always conforms that his stats are at least questionable

:facepalm

Never wins when it counts? When exactly does it count?

He's lost in the first round once in his career, last year to champ GS when Murray and MPJ were out.

[Dbrog]

Agreed. If that was the case it would be more accurately represented if players voted on it

1987 - 1993: Jordan 7x
1994 and 1995: Hakeem 2x
1996 - 1998: Jordan 3x
1999 - 2002: Shaq 4x
2003 - 2005: Duncan 3x
2006 - 2008: Kobe 3x
2009 - 2015: LeBron 7x
2016 - 2019: KD / Curry 4x
2020 - 2023: Giannis 4x

Hyper accurate, agree?

Could probably nitpick on a few of these but overall yes, I would agree that's significantly more accurate

[DMAVS41]

:facepalm

Never wins when it counts? When exactly does it count?

He's lost in the first round once in his career, last year to champ GS when Murray and MPJ were out.

It's amazing the double standards. Usually from Kobe fans....things never change.

If Kobe was playing on a team that was -10.9 points per 100 without him...while putting up 25/12/10 (70%TS) with a +23.2 net rating (Kobe's highest was +12.5)...while having the best record in the Western Conference...

They'd literally never stop crying if he didn't win MVP in a landslide.

[hold this L]

I live outside of the ISH/RGM bubble. Most people would agree that KB is somewhere around top 5 all-time. When you look at sources where thousands of people have voted he's almost always been top 5 and that's been going on for over a decade lol.
Popularity =/= reality. Some people don't even have Kobe in the top 10, and I'm not talking about the ish idiots who do it here just to troll. I don't think he has any argument for top 5 to be honest, even though he's in the top 10.

[SouBeachTalents]

Yea that’s basically the list but more accurately broken down in terms of per year general consensus best player. In fact it’s really on point.
KD doesn't have a single season where he was the consensus best player in the league, yet he's somehow on the 3rd tier and two tiers above Hakeem, who has 2 seasons as being the unanimous BITW? That doesn't make any sense.

[Axe]

Shaq played most of his prime with Kobe, who is arguably the 2nd best SG of all time. It is a lot harder to make the case for Shaq being the MVP when his teammate is the best SG in the league.
This seems accurate, uncle. Kobe never played like pippen. He was more closer to jordan, preferring to do more with scoring than anything else. Thus i believe this impeded shaq's chances of winning more mvp awards after 2000.

[ImKobe]

Popularity =/= reality. Some people don't even have Kobe in the top 10, and I'm not talking about the ish idiots who do it here just to troll. I don't think he has any argument for top 5 to be honest, even though he's in the top 10.

You're allowed to disagree and have your own opinion but that's been the case. I don't have Lebron top 3 all-time but it doesn't change the fact that most people would put him there and his popularity obviously has a lot to do with it, same with other ATGs.


I disagree.

I could come up with similar things. Dirk had to deal with Stack, Howard, Harris, and Daniels all missing a bunch of games.

This is why people get annoyed with Kobe fans...they legit think putting up 28/6/5 on worse efficiency and winning 57 games is completely different than putting up 27/9/3 and winning 60 games. We can quibble about who was better based on circumstances, but there is essentially no difference.

In addition, the Lakers were slightly better without Kobe than the Mavericks were without Dirk. The Lakers were +2 points per 100 without Kobe and the Mavs were +.2 without Dirk.

End of the day...there just wasn't a difference of note objectively. Dirk had as good as overall numbers and won 3 more games with a team that was slightly worse without him than the Lakers were without Kobe. MVP level stuff and to pretend otherwise is biased.

And, to address your argument about the tougher conference in 08...cool...the Mavs won 3 more games. How much harder are you arguing it was? 3 games harder, which would be a lot, and you have the same record. :confusedshrug:

There clearly is a difference, and you're comparing '06 vs '08.. The Western Conference was so much better in '08 -- more than 3 games considering there's 8 50+ win teams with 6 of them contending for the #1 spot. KB had almost twice the assists but you're rounding up numbers & acting like it's the exact same lol. That same Mavs team is not winning 60 games in '08. They traded for Kidd in '08 and still only won 51 games. It's not a difference of 3 games when there's 8 50+ win teams compared to 3 in '06, the 8th seed was 9 games better in comparison.

And where did you get those On/Off numbers? Lakers had a -8.68 Net Rating without Kobe while the Mavs had a -1.36 Net Rating without Dirk in '06, '08 Lakers were -0.14 without KB (pbpstats).

[DMAVS41]

You're allowed to disagree and have your own opinion but that's been the case. I don't have Lebron top 3 all-time but it doesn't change the fact that most people would put him there and his popularity obviously has a lot to do with it, same with other ATGs.



There clearly is a difference, and you're comparing '06 vs '08.. The Western Conference was so much better in '08 -- more than 3 games considering there's 8 50+ win teams with 6 of them contending for the #1 spot. KB had almost twice the assists but you're rounding up numbers & acting like it's the exact same lol. That same Mavs team is not winning 60 games in '08. They traded for Kidd in '08 and still only won 51 games. It's not a difference of 3 games when there's 8 50+ win teams compared to 3 in '06, the 8th seed was 9 games better in comparison.

And where did you get those On/Off numbers? Lakers had a -8.68 Net Rating without Kobe while the Mavs had a -1.36 Net Rating without Dirk in '06, '08 Lakers were -0.14 without KB (pbpstats).

When you say..."so much better".....I don't know what you mean. 3 games different would be a huge difference. On this point, I don't think you understand what you are talking about here...made more obvious that thinking the 08 team was better. They were not even close to as good. The 08 team...clearly a worse team...and Kidd only played like 20 something games as well. Again, you do not know what you are talking about. That 08 team still winning 51 in your "so much better" conference would actually strengthen my argument. Sorry...

Just plainly stated on basketball-reference in the play by play section of Kobe and Dirk profile. Lakers were +9 points per 100 with Kobe and +2 points per 100 without Kobe. Not sure what you are referencing.

Checked pbp stats and they are similar to what I posted. You read the Dirk stuff wrong. They were +8.63 with Dirk and -1.36 without him for a total net rating of +10. For Kobe, they were +9.23 with him and -.14 without him for a total net rating of +9.37. You used the net rating for the Lakers in 06 without Kobe. Remember, we are comparing Kobe's 08 season to Dirk's 06 season...you can't use the 06 Kobe on/off dude...LOL. Slightly better for Dirk in net rating like I said above.

To make it clear for you...using your own pbpstats...

Dirk's net rating in 06 was +10
Kobe's net rating in 08 was +9.37

The Lakers, without Kobe in 08, were slightly better than the Mavericks were...without Dirk in 06.

Sorry, there just isn't any difference here. You can think that, but nothing supports it. Similar numbers, similar record, similar on/off. Sorry, no difference.

[ImKobe]

When you say..."so much better".....I don't know what you mean. 3 games different would be a huge difference. On this point, I don't think you understand what you are talking about here...made more obvious that thinking the 08 team was better. They were not even close to as good.

Just plainly stated on basketball-reference in the play by play section of Kobe and Dirk profile. Lakers were +9 points per 100 with Kobe and +2 points per 100 without Kobe. Not sure what you are referencing.

Of course you know what I mean. CP3, Deron & Melo hit their primes and Kobe finally had help around him and the Suns had Amare. There were twice as many teams competing for a #1 seed & a Finals appearance. '06 WC was nowhere near as good in comparison so it's dumb to compare the stats & win totals across those seasons.

[DMAVS41]

Of course you know what I mean. CP3, Deron & Melo hit their primes and Kobe finally had help around him and the Suns had Amare. There were twice as many teams competing for a #1 seed & a Finals appearance. '06 WC was nowhere near as good in comparison so it's dumb to compare the stats & win totals across those seasons.

No, I don't...because you have to quantify it. You only play 52 games against the West. 3 extra lost games is a ****ing huge difference and you are telling me it's way more than 3. So I'd like to know what you think the 60 win Mavs team in 06 would have won in 08.

You are acting, again as most Kobe fans do, like Kobe just did something so amazing...and that just isn't true. He had a great regular season...a season quite similar to Dirk in 06 overall.

[Real Men Wear Green]

The MVP is a regular season award but the game is about winning and when he never wins when it counts, that always conforms that his stats are at least questionable
You don't say anything about his performance.

You are talking playoffs when this award is for the regular season.

You ignore the fact that he has won some series.

[DMAVS41]

Of course you know what I mean. CP3, Deron & Melo hit their primes and Kobe finally had help around him and the Suns had Amare. There were twice as many teams competing for a #1 seed & a Finals appearance. '06 WC was nowhere near as good in comparison so it's dumb to compare the stats & win totals across those seasons.

Please quantify it. I want to know how much better it was. Was it 10% better? 20% better? 50% better? I'd legit like to know how much better you think it was.

[DMAVS41]

You don't say anything about his performance.

You are talking playoffs when this award is for the regular season.

You ignore the fact that he has won some series.

Because he can't. Jokic isn't perfect, but this shit is just annoying at this point. Nick Wright goes on and on about how Jokic gets over-rated, but routinely ignores that his team literally falls apart when he isn't on the court...and it's impacting the views of others. I've heard other commentators talk about Jokic like..."if he doesn't do something great in the playoffs this year, with this team...something is wrong, maybe he's not as good as we thought"....

The could be fair in certain circumstances, but the only question I'd want to know about that standard is....when Jokic goes to the bench in the playoffs...will his team get destroyed by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions like they have all year?

Because winning in the playoffs without a second star is hard enough, but I'm not sure any single star team has ever won anything being that bad without the star on the court all regular season.

[RRR3]

Because he can't. Jokic isn't perfect, but this shit is just annoying at this point. Nick Wright goes on and on about how Jokic gets over-rated, but routinely ignores that his team literally falls apart when he isn't on the court...and it's impacting the views of others. I've heard other commentators talk about Jokic like..."if he doesn't do something great in the playoffs this year, with this team...something is wrong, maybe he's not as good as we thought"....

The could be fair in certain circumstances, but the only question I'd want to know about that standard is....when Jokic goes to the bench in the playoffs...will his team get destroyed by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions like they have all year?

Because winning in the playoffs without a second star is hard enough, but I'm not sure any single star team has ever won anything being that bad without the star on the court all regular season.
People blamed LeBron for not winning in 2009 and he had similar on/off numbers. This is despite the fact that he averaged almost 40 PPG on great efficiency in the series he lost too. There’s no winning with people this devoid of logic. Jokic has started getting held to completely unreasonable standards because he’s about to win 3 in a row.

[SouBeachTalents]

Some people will never give a player props until they win a championship, regardless of how well he plays or how clear it is they don't have a real championship supporting cast. It's just the way it is. It'll happen to Jokic, Luka, Embiid etc. until they break through and win a title, and we'd still be hearing it about Giannis if KD's toe was behind the line.

[tontoz]

Some people will never give a player props until they win a championship, regardless of how well he plays or how clear it is they don't have a real championship supporting cast. It's just the way it is. It'll happen to Jokic, Luka, Embiid etc. until they break through and win a title, and we'd still be hearing it about Giannis if KD's toe was behind the line.


We were hearing it about Giannis all the time until he won. There are some that still won't give him props.

[John8204]

Agreed. If that was the case it would be more accurately represented if players voted on it

1987 - 1993: Jordan 7x
1994 and 1995: Hakeem 2x
1996 - 1998: Jordan 3x
1999 - 2002: Shaq 4x
2003 - 2005: Duncan 3x
2006 - 2008: Kobe 3x
2009 - 2015: LeBron 7x
2016 - 2019: KD / Curry 4x
2020 - 2023: Giannis 4x

Hyper accurate, agree?

86/87 - Jordan
87/88 - Bird (4)
88/89 - Jordan(2)
89/90 - John Stockton(or Isiah Thomas)
90/91 - Jordan(3)
91/92 - Jordan(4)
92/93 - Patrick Ewing
93/94 - Olajuwon
94/95 - Shaquille O'Neal
95/96 - Jordan(5)
96/97 - Jordan(6)
97/98 - K. Malone
99/00 - Shaquille O'Neal(2)
00/01 - C Webber
01/02 - Duncan
02/03 - J. Kidd
04/05 - Duncan(2)
05/06 - Kobe
06/07 - Dirk
07/08 - CPIII
08/09 - Lebron
09/10 - Kobe(2)
10/11 - Kobe (3)
11/12 - Lebron(2)
12/13 - Lebron(3)
13/14 - Durant
14/15 - Curry
15/16 - Curry(2)
16/17 - Lebron(4)
17/18 - Lebron(5)
18/19 - Harden
19/20 - Lebron (6)
20/21 - CPIII (2)
21/22 - Giannis
22/23 - Giannis(2)

I don't think players buy into numbers as much as the media. I can see Lebron and Jordan both getting 6, Kobe getting 3, Stockton/Malone each getting 1, Chris Paul getting 2 one when he entered the league and once we he turned out Philly. I think we would be in the Giannis era right now.

Magic Johnson always had the media but I don't know if the players would have gotten behind him. I could also see Patrick Ewing, Jason Kidd, and Chris Webber maybe sneaking in some MVP's over Robinson, AI, and KG.

[Spuddywebby]

If you stacked up all the mvp trophies won by steve nash and nikola jokic they would measure taller than op

OP is a shorter version of Rachel Dolezal.

[StrongLurk]

Kobe won MVP in the only year where he deserved it. Shaq could've won more MVPs but he always missed too many regular season games. No one brings that up about Shaq.

[ImKobe]

No, I don't...because you have to quantify it. You only play 52 games against the West. 3 extra lost games is a ****ing huge difference and you are telling me it's way more than 3. So I'd like to know what you think the 60 win Mavs team in 06 would have won in 08.

You are acting, again as most Kobe fans do, like Kobe just did something so amazing...and that just isn't true. He had a great regular season...a season quite similar to Dirk in 06 overall.

It is, and the West had twice as many teams that were good enough to make a Finals run in '08. I already listed you the reasons why.

Southwest Division was a bloodbath in '08. They lost 3 more games just by Houston & NO being contenders in '08 (8 - 0 vs them in '06, 5 - 3 in '08, there's your 3-game difference). They still had a great record vs. West teams in '08 but performed worse vs. the EC (2 wins vs a 33-win Boston squad that they had in '06? That's 0 - 2 in '08). That's 5 games alone right there. IDK why you're trying to argue for '06 Dirk so badly when his team finished 11 - 9 in their last 20 (last loss shouldn't really count as they were locked into 4) because they threw 3 games vs. 30-win teams lol. Give me the guy who led his team to a #1 seed and held onto it down the stretch while producing at a more consistent volume throughout the season and not just as a scorer but as a playmaker & a defender as well.

[RRR3]

86/87 - Jordan
87/88 - Bird (4)
88/89 - Jordan(2)
89/90 - John Stockton(or Isiah Thomas)
90/91 - Jordan(3)
91/92 - Jordan(4)
92/93 - Patrick Ewing
93/94 - Olajuwon
94/95 - Shaquille O'Neal
95/96 - Jordan(5)
96/97 - Jordan(6)
97/98 - K. Malone
99/00 - Shaquille O'Neal(2)
00/01 - C Webber
01/02 - Duncan
02/03 - J. Kidd
04/05 - Duncan(2)
05/06 - Kobe
06/07 - Dirk
07/08 - CPIII
08/09 - Lebron
09/10 - Kobe(2)
10/11 - Kobe (3)
11/12 - Lebron(2)
12/13 - Lebron(3)
13/14 - Durant
14/15 - Curry
15/16 - Curry(2)
16/17 - Lebron(4)
17/18 - Lebron(5)
18/19 - Harden
19/20 - Lebron (6)
20/21 - CPIII (2)
21/22 - Giannis
22/23 - Giannis(2)

I don't think players buy into numbers as much as the media. I can see Lebron and Jordan both getting 6, Kobe getting 3, Stockton/Malone each getting 1, Chris Paul getting 2 one when he entered the league and once we he turned out Philly. I think we would be in the Giannis era right now.

Magic Johnson always had the media but I don't know if the players would have gotten behind him. I could also see Patrick Ewing, Jason Kidd, and Chris Webber maybe sneaking in some MVP's over Robinson, AI, and KG.
Holy shit :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Norcaliblunt]

Steve Nash at least lead his team to the best regular season record in 05 with 62 wins. Something joker aint done.

[tontoz]

Steve Nash at least lead his team to the best regular season record in 05 with 62 wins. Something joker aint done.


Nash had two teammates in the All-star game that year. Joker has zero.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/g195/tontoz/.highres/smack-1.gif

[Norcaliblunt]

Nash had two teammates in the All-star game that year. Joker has zero.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/g195/tontoz/.highres/smack-1.gif

So you think the nuggets are a 62 win, undisputed best regular season team with Marion and Amare instead of Gordon and Murray and porter Jr?

[tontoz]

So you think the nuggets are a 62 win, undisputed best regular season team Marion and Amare instead of Gordon and Murray and porter Jr?


Easily. Not only were Amare and Marion far better players, they missed only 3 games combined that year.

Murray has missed 14 games so far. MPJ has missed 17, Gordon 12.

[BigShotBob]

So you think the nuggets are a 62 win, undisputed best regular season team with Marion and Amare instead of Gordon and Murray and porter Jr?

No he doesn't. Because Nash came back in 2005-2006 to lead a team with Raja Bell and Shawn Marion to more wins than Jokic ever has without Amare.

Jokic doesn't have the expectations of Steve Nash because we all know as a big he can't anchor his team's defense like he should. So the Nuggets will always have a natural ceiling with him regardless of who he has around him

[tontoz]

No he doesn't. Because Nash came back in 2005-2006 to lead a team with Raja Bell and Shawn Marion to more wins than Jokic ever has without Amare.

Jokic doesn't have the expectations of Steve Nash because we all know as a big he can't anchor his team's defense like he should. So the Nuggets will always have a natural ceiling with him regardless of who he has around him



They are the top seed in the West. That is their ceiling.

[BigShotBob]

They are the top seed in the West. That is their ceiling.

They are a regular season team with Jokic and always will be. Outside of the bubble he will never go past the 2nd round unless he stacks the deck. That's just the nature of his limited impact.

The Nuggets are no better than the Jazz were a couple years ago. If the Nuggets faced the Clippers, healthy Lakers, healthy Suns, or the Warriors, you know that there's a high probably that they would lose. Mainly because Jokic would be the 2nd or 3rd best player in all of those series.

He's just not good enough yet.

[tontoz]

They are a regular season team with Jokic and always will be. Outside of the bubble he will never go past the 2nd round unless he stacks the deck. That's just the nature of his limited impact.

The Nuggets are no better than the Jazz were a couple years ago. If the Nuggets faced the Clippers, healthy Lakers, healthy Suns, or the Warriors, you know that there's a high probably that they would lose. Mainly because Jokic would be the 2nd or 3rd best player in all of those series.

He's just not good enough yet.


So they will never get past the second round, except for the time they did.

Cool story bro

[BigShotBob]

So they will never get past the second round, except for the time they did.

Cool story bro

Count the bubble if you want. Funny how they couldn't do it before and can't do it after. Weird how that works.

2019 Jamal Murray had 0 40 point games

In the 2020 Bubble Jamal Murray had 4 40+ point games

I wonder what changed :roll:

[tontoz]

Count the bubble if you want. Funny how they couldn't do it before and can't do it after. Weird how that works.

2019 Jamal Murray had 0 40 point games

In the 2020 Bubble Jamal Murray had 4 40+ point games

I wonder what changed :roll:

And they made the second round without him the next year.

[ArbitraryWater]

The dumbest Bill Simmons take bar none was claiming Shaq was the most underrated superstar ever while saying he ranked him 13th all time :oldlol:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYsxZJRtrz0&t&ab_channel=BillSimmons



:roll:


yeah, weird af.

[ArbitraryWater]

Nash’s best season was 2007 dumb ass. They would’ve been in the Finals dog walking that Cavs for an easy ring if it wasn’t for a suspension.

Meanwhile Dirk got outplayed by Stephen Jackson with a 60+ win team losing to an 8th seed in the first round. What would a German snitch know about basketball anyway?

The MVP embarrassingly accepting the award in a press conference and not in the conference finals, isn’t the MVP.

I don’t care how much rationalization about it being a regular season award, total bullshit. If you’re not at minimum, making the second round of the playoffs, you definitely weren't the MVP. Not with a 60+ win team and massive amounts of help.

Only exception to that rule would be Kobe in 2006 and Westbrick in 2017.

Hell, Dirk would tell you that himself, he basically has implied that multiple times. You could see the embarrassment on his face, accepting the award in a press conference, while the second round of the playoffs and beyond was happening literally, the worst MVP of all time.


You are exceptionally retarded.

Dirk was the clear MVP in 2007 and 2006.

[DMAVS41]

It is, and the West had twice as many teams that were good enough to make a Finals run in '08. I already listed you the reasons why.

Southwest Division was a bloodbath in '08. They lost 3 more games just by Houston & NO being contenders in '08 (8 - 0 vs them in '06, 5 - 3 in '08, there's your 3-game difference). They still had a great record vs. West teams in '08 but performed worse vs. the EC (2 wins vs a 33-win Boston squad that they had in '06? That's 0 - 2 in '08). That's 5 games alone right there. IDK why you're trying to argue for '06 Dirk so badly when his team finished 11 - 9 in their last 20 (last loss shouldn't really count as they were locked into 4) because they threw 3 games vs. 30-win teams lol. Give me the guy who led his team to a #1 seed and held onto it down the stretch while producing at a more consistent volume throughout the season and not just as a scorer but as a playmaker & a defender as well.

I said Dirk deserved it if Nash didn't get it. We then started comparing 08 Kobe's season to Dirk's 06 season...and I don't think you liked how Dirk compares favorably to 08 Kobe...so you started coming up with excuses.

No, that isn't 5 games right there...you aren't understanding how good the 06 Mavs were. Again, a much worse team in 08 won 51 games in your "by far better conference"...even if I adopted your view....in a discussion like this...the absolute minimum number of games the 06 Mavs would win would be like 55...and that wouldn't change anything with what I've said. You talk like someone that didn't watch that season. The Mavs beat the ****ing Spurs in the playoffs that year...a Spurs team that won 63 games and lost exactly one playoff series in 3 years (to the Mavs mind you)...a team that good is not just taking "for sure" losses to any regular season teams you are listing like that.

The Rockets, with Mac and Yao missing a lot of games, won 55 games...but oh no, the 06 Mavs, clearly a better team, just couldn't reproduce what the amazing Rockets did.

We've already been through everything. In 06...Dirk had basically identical raw stats / efficiency...had a better net rating...had a better offensive rating (and defensive rating iirc)...and led his team to 60 wins.

The notion that there was a huge difference between 06 Dirk's and 08 Kobe's argument for MVP is not true in any reality...it is only true in the minds of Kobe fans.

[DMAVS41]

Easily. Not only were Amare and Marion far better players, they missed only 3 games combined that year.

Murray has missed 14 games so far. MPJ has missed 17, Gordon 12.

What is hilarious...is that Jokic, with this current Nuggets team...is +12.3 points per 100 when he is on the court (Nash was +12.7 in 05)...the difference is that when Nash was on the bench, the Suns were -2.2 points per 100 and the Nuggets are a ****ing awful -10.9 points per 100. He wouldn't even need better starters...Jokic just needs to have a decent bench and they'd easily be a 60 win team.

Not even a question. It's just math.

[SouBeachTalents]

86/87 - Jordan
87/88 - Bird (4)
88/89 - Jordan(2)
89/90 - John Stockton(or Isiah Thomas)
90/91 - Jordan(3)
91/92 - Jordan(4)
92/93 - Patrick Ewing
93/94 - Olajuwon
94/95 - Shaquille O'Neal
95/96 - Jordan(5)
96/97 - Jordan(6)
97/98 - K. Malone
99/00 - Shaquille O'Neal(2)
00/01 - C Webber
01/02 - Duncan
02/03 - J. Kidd
04/05 - Duncan(2)
05/06 - Kobe
06/07 - Dirk
07/08 - CPIII
08/09 - Lebron
09/10 - Kobe(2)
10/11 - Kobe (3)
11/12 - Lebron(2)
12/13 - Lebron(3)
13/14 - Durant
14/15 - Curry
15/16 - Curry(2)
16/17 - Lebron(4)
17/18 - Lebron(5)
18/19 - Harden
19/20 - Lebron (6)
20/21 - CPIII (2)
21/22 - Giannis
22/23 - Giannis(2)
It's like he goes out of his way to say intentionally dumb shit. You couldn't even narrow down the 5 worst selections on the list.

[DMAVS41]

They are a regular season team with Jokic and always will be. Outside of the bubble he will never go past the 2nd round unless he stacks the deck. That's just the nature of his limited impact.

The Nuggets are no better than the Jazz were a couple years ago. If the Nuggets faced the Clippers, healthy Lakers, healthy Suns, or the Warriors, you know that there's a high probably that they would lose. Mainly because Jokic would be the 2nd or 3rd best player in all of those series.

He's just not good enough yet.

Why are the players that people say "aren't that good" always expected to do things that the so-called "better players" can't do?

[ImKobe]

I said Dirk deserved it if Nash didn't get it. We then started comparing 08 Kobe's season to Dirk's 06 season...and I don't think you liked how Dirk compares favorably to 08 Kobe...so you started coming up with excuses.

No, that isn't 5 games right there...you aren't understanding how good the 06 Mavs were. Again, a much worse team in 08 won 51 games in your "by far better conference"...even if I adopted your view....in a discussion like this...the absolute minimum number of games the 06 Mavs would win would be like 55...and that wouldn't change anything with what I've said. You talk like someone that didn't watch that season. The Mavs beat the ****ing Spurs in the playoffs that year...a Spurs team that won 63 games and lost exactly one playoff series in 3 years (to the Mavs mind you)...a team that good is not just taking "for sure" losses to any regular season teams you are listing like that.

The Rockets, with Mac and Yao missing a lot of games, won 55 games...but oh no, the 06 Mavs, clearly a better team, just couldn't reproduce what the amazing Rockets did.

We've already been through everything. In 06...Dirk had basically identical raw stats / efficiency...had a better net rating...had a better offensive rating (and defensive rating iirc)...and led his team to 60 wins.

The notion that there was a huge difference between 06 Dirk's and 08 Kobe's argument for MVP is not true in any reality...it is only true in the minds of Kobe fans.


There's obviously a difference. One led his team to the #1 seed in a more contested WC while the other had the #1 seed and blew it vs. some bad teams down the stretch. Dirk was godlike in the '06 WC Playoffs but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

Rockets had the 2nd best defense & got Scola that year and T-Mac was healthy for most of the season, of course they won 55 games. They won 22 straight at one point (26 out of 27) with a bunch of double-digit blowout wins vs. the best teams in the league and it was mostly due to their defense. '08 Rockets had a better team than the '06 Mavs but Yao got injured during that win streak.

But hey, apparently the league wasn't better in '08 when Bran, Deron, CP3, Melo, Dwight etc all hit their prime and we had more 50+ win teams in the West alone than the entire league combined in '06 lol.

[DMAVS41]

There's obviously a difference. One led his team to the #1 seed in a more contested WC while the other had the #1 seed and blew it vs. some bad teams down the stretch. Dirk was godlike in the '06 WC Playoffs but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

Rockets had the 2nd best defense & got Scola that year and T-Mac was healthy for most of the season, of course they won 55 games. They won 22 straight at one point (26 out of 27) with a bunch of double-digit blowout wins vs. the best teams in the league and it was mostly due to their defense. '08 Rockets had a better team than the '06 Mavs but Yao got injured during that win streak.

But hey, apparently the league wasn't better in '08 when Bran, Deron, CP3, Melo, Dwight etc all hit their prime and we had more 50+ win teams in the West alone than the entire league combined in '06 lol.

It is about answering your argument. I never even said the conference wasn't better...I asked you to quantify it. I brought up the Rockets to illustrate how you can't just start making claims like you are. Yao missed like 30 games iirc. I know Mac missed a few as well. That Rockets team was good, but they weren't as good as the 06 Mavs...certainly not with Dirk playing 81 games as the best player, clearly, on both teams. If that Rockets team can win 55 and the Jazz can win 54...an unbiased person is not setting the win total for the 06 Mavs in that conference at the numbers you are talking about it...it just isn't based in reality. Again, a much worse Mavs team in 08 still won 51 games...and that was with Dirk missing 5 games and them going 2-3 in those games.

Also disagree about how hard it was to get the 1 seed...the 06 Spurs were better than any team in the 08 West...even the Lakers.

What you are doing is the definition of what gives Kobe fans such a bad reputation. You have been presented with objective evidence from all fronts about how similar the two were those years. I haven't claimed Dirk was clearly better or anything like that. I've simply posted as much objective evidence as possible....and your response is that teams like the Rockets with Yao missing huge time, Mac missing 15 games, and the Jazz...were just clearly better than 06 Mavs. That is what you have resorted to because that is the only argument you can make after realizing Dirk's numbers were as good or better than Kobe's...that the 06 Mavs just weren't on the same level as the injury riddled 08 Rockets that didn't have a player as good as Dirk.

If you can't see how dumb that is...I give up.

[DMAVS41]

Dirk - 27/9/3 (59%TS) 123 ortg / 103 drtg...+10 Net Rating...28.1 PER...60 wins

Kobe - 28/6/5 (57%TS) 115 ortg / 105 drtg...+9.5 Net Rating....24.2 PER...57 wins


Logical conclusion...Kobe was significantly better because...something about a Mavs team good enough to win 60 and make the finals after upsetting a dominant Spurs team that likely would have 3-peated...not being able to keep pace with the likes of an injured Rockets team and a Jazz team with Deron / Boozer...

Great argument.

:cheers:

[John8204]

It's like he goes out of his way to say intentionally dumb shit. You couldn't even narrow down the 5 worst selections on the list.

Well you aren't going to get into specifics but heres the stupid reasonings...
89/90 - John Stockton(or Isiah Thomas)
This was the year Stockton set the all-time seasonal assists record or you could go with Isiah being the best player on the Pistons the best team in the league.

92/93 - Patrick Ewing
Ewing finished fourth this year, this was the year the Knicks won 60 games. Ewing had been in the mix since he was drafted but the media likely picked the more charismatic funny guy over the guy that led his team to a top seed year after year.

00/01 - C Webber
Went with Allen Iverson who put up great numbers in the weaker East. But Webber's Kings moved from the 8 seed to the 3 and his PPG numbers jumped up to 27 to go along with TRB staying in double digits

02/03 - J. Kidd
Like Ewing Jason was in the mix for the MVP for several seasons...this was after he took his team to the finals and he was the MVP runnerup to Duncan. Nets were #2 in the East and he led the league in assists. This was the year the voters really gave up on voting for a true PG

09/10 - Kobe (2)
10/11 - Kobe (3)
Kobe had taken his Lakers to the finals for the last several seasons, Lebron hadn't won a ring yet. Kobe finished top five both seasons I think the players generally wouldn't have been against giving it to the Vet over the two younger Lebron and Rose

20/21 - CPIII (2)
This would have been after the CPIII season where he took the sorry OKC team to the playoffs and 7 games against Harden/Westbrook Rockets. He then joined the Suns and they moved up to the second best record in the league (behind Utah)

Now you might not like those picks...but I think actual players would have gone that way over the media which tended to focus on madeup stats like win shares and focus on narratives/personality.

[1987_Lakers]

Well you aren't going to get into specifics but heres the stupid reasonings...
89/90 - John Stockton(or Isiah Thomas)
This was the year Stockton set the all-time seasonal assists record or you could go with Isiah being the best player on the Pistons the best team in the league.

92/93 - Patrick Ewing
Ewing finished fourth this year, this was the year the Knicks won 60 games. Ewing had been in the mix since he was drafted but the media likely picked the more charismatic funny guy over the guy that led his team to a top seed year after year.

00/01 - C Webber
Went with Allen Iverson who put up great numbers in the weaker East. But Webber's Kings moved from the 8 seed to the 3 and his PPG numbers jumped up to 27 to go along with TRB staying in double digits

02/03 - J. Kidd
Like Ewing Jason was in the mix for the MVP for several seasons...this was after he took his team to the finals and he was the MVP runnerup to Duncan. Nets were #2 in the East and he led the league in assists. This was the year the voters really gave up on voting for a true PG

09/10 - Kobe (2)
10/11 - Kobe (3)
Kobe had taken his Lakers to the finals for the last several seasons, Lebron hadn't won a ring yet. Kobe finished top five both seasons I think the players generally wouldn't have been against giving it to the Vet over the two younger Lebron and Rose

20/21 - CPIII (2)
This would have been after the CPIII season where he took the sorry OKC team to the playoffs and 7 games against Harden/Westbrook Rockets. He then joined the Suns and they moved up to the second best record in the league (behind Utah)

Now you might not like those picks...but I think actual players would have gone that way over the media which tended to focus on madeup stats like win shares and focus on narratives/personality.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExMmQ2NWExMTkwMzgyYzIyOTg2OWQxMjN hNTJiMzRlODQxYjhkNDJkMiZjdD1n/6TEOwR3aBzkyY/giphy.gif

[Axe]

They are a regular season team with Jokic and always will be. Outside of the bubble he will never go past the 2nd round unless he stacks the deck. That's just the nature of his limited impact.

The Nuggets are no better than the Jazz were a couple years ago. If the Nuggets faced the Clippers, healthy Lakers, healthy Suns, or the Warriors, you know that there's a high probably that they would lose. Mainly because Jokic would be the 2nd or 3rd best player in all of those series.

He's just not good enough yet.
Meltdown. What an int'l 2nd round pick like joker does today is better than whatever int'l players did way back in the watered-down 90s.

[FKAri]

They are a regular season team with Jokic and always will be. Outside of the bubble he will never go past the 2nd round unless he stacks the deck. That's just the nature of his limited impact.

The Nuggets are no better than the Jazz were a couple years ago. If the Nuggets faced the Clippers, healthy Lakers, healthy Suns, or the Warriors, you know that there's a high probably that they would lose. Mainly because Jokic would be the 2nd or 3rd best player in all of those series.

He's just not good enough yet.

I remember hearing the same thing about Dirk. Ceiling because he's a big who isn't a defensive anchor.

[ShawkFactory]

Well you aren't going to get into specifics but heres the stupid reasonings...
89/90 - John Stockton(or Isiah Thomas)
This was the year Stockton set the all-time seasonal assists record or you could go with Isiah being the best player on the Pistons the best team in the league.

92/93 - Patrick Ewing
Ewing finished fourth this year, this was the year the Knicks won 60 games. Ewing had been in the mix since he was drafted but the media likely picked the more charismatic funny guy over the guy that led his team to a top seed year after year.

00/01 - C Webber
Went with Allen Iverson who put up great numbers in the weaker East. But Webber's Kings moved from the 8 seed to the 3 and his PPG numbers jumped up to 27 to go along with TRB staying in double digits

02/03 - J. Kidd
Like Ewing Jason was in the mix for the MVP for several seasons...this was after he took his team to the finals and he was the MVP runnerup to Duncan. Nets were #2 in the East and he led the league in assists. This was the year the voters really gave up on voting for a true PG

09/10 - Kobe (2)
10/11 - Kobe (3)
Kobe had taken his Lakers to the finals for the last several seasons, Lebron hadn't won a ring yet. Kobe finished top five both seasons I think the players generally wouldn't have been against giving it to the Vet over the two younger Lebron and Rose

20/21 - CPIII (2)
This would have been after the CPIII season where he took the sorry OKC team to the playoffs and 7 games against Harden/Westbrook Rockets. He then joined the Suns and they moved up to the second best record in the league (behind Utah)

Now you might not like those picks...but I think actual players would have gone that way over the media which tended to focus on madeup stats like win shares and focus on narratives/personality.

Holy shit your logic is ridiculous. Mainly because it just completely changes whenever you want it to.

[DMAVS41]

I remember hearing the same thing about Dirk. Ceiling because he's a big who isn't a defensive anchor.

Yep...and, just like with Jokic, for some reason these guys that just aren't that great...are expected to win titles without all-nba level teammates and with teams that fall apart when they aren't on the court.

[ShawkFactory]

They are a regular season team with Jokic and always will be. Outside of the bubble he will never go past the 2nd round unless he stacks the deck. That's just the nature of his limited impact.

The Nuggets are no better than the Jazz were a couple years ago. If the Nuggets faced the Clippers, healthy Lakers, healthy Suns, or the Warriors, you know that there's a high probably that they would lose. Mainly because Jokic would be the 2nd or 3rd best player in all of those series.

He's just not good enough yet.

Against which of those teams is Jokic the 3rd best player on the floor.

[WhiteKyrie]

Count the bubble if you want. Funny how they couldn't do it before and can't do it after. Weird how that works.

2019 Jamal Murray had 0 40 point games

In the 2020 Bubble Jamal Murray had 4 40+ point games

I wonder what changed :roll:
What changed (also I agree)

Dame just dropped 71. In the Olympics with actual physicality and real sport rules for basketball, he was average as hell.

[BigShotBob]

I remember hearing the same thing about Dirk. Ceiling because he's a big who isn't a defensive anchor.

Dirk is a PF not a center. The narrative was that he needed a defensive anchor next to him. If you think Jokic needs to move to the 4 then be my guest.


Yep...and, just like with Jokic, for some reason these guys that just aren't that great...are expected to win titles without all-nba level teammates and with teams that fall apart when they aren't on the court.

Isiah Thomas won a ring without an All-NBA teammate. Cry me a river.


Against which of those teams is Jokic the 3rd best player on the floor.

Suns, Warriors, and Lakers. Devin Booker/KD > Jokic, Steph/Klay > Jokic, Lebron/AD > Jokic. Clippers barely with Kawhi/PG, and Mavs barely with Luka/Kyrie. Any given night any of those players could outplay Jokic for an entire series.

[SouBeachTalents]

Dirk is a PF not a center. The narrative was that he needed a defensive anchor next to him. If you think Jokic needs to move to the 4 then be my guest.



Isiah Thomas won a ring without an All-NBA teammate. Cry me a river.



Suns, Warriors, and Lakers. Devin Booker/KD > Jokic, Steph/Klay > Jokic, Lebron/AD > Jokic. Clippers barely with Kawhi/PG, and Mavs barely with Luka/Kyrie. Any given night any of those players could outplay Jokic for an entire series.
Klay Thompson > Jokic is literally one of the dumbest things that's ever been posted on here.

[post]

horry on denver could get jokic 7 chips

[ShawkFactory]

Dirk is a PF not a center. The narrative was that he needed a defensive anchor next to him. If you think Jokic needs to move to the 4 then be my guest.



Isiah Thomas won a ring without an All-NBA teammate. Cry me a river.



Suns, Warriors, and Lakers. Devin Booker/KD > Jokic, Steph/Klay > Jokic, Lebron/AD > Jokic. Clippers barely with Kawhi/PG, and Mavs barely with Luka/Kyrie. Any given night any of those players could outplay Jokic for an entire series.

Lol wtf

[DMAVS41]

Dirk is a PF not a center. The narrative was that he needed a defensive anchor next to him. If you think Jokic needs to move to the 4 then be my guest.



Isiah Thomas won a ring without an All-NBA teammate. Cry me a river.



Suns, Warriors, and Lakers. Devin Booker/KD > Jokic, Steph/Klay > Jokic, Lebron/AD > Jokic. Clippers barely with Kawhi/PG, and Mavs barely with Luka/Kyrie. Any given night any of those players could outplay Jokic for an entire series.

So did Dirk, Hakeem, Duncan, Giannis, Curry...etc.

I wasn't arguing it "can't" be done in some technical sense. It is simply shorthand for the kind of help Jokic has in comparison to virtually every single star teams that have won. If Jokic won a title with this current team...he'd enter the rare space of 94 Hakeem, 03 Duncan, and 11 Dirk as winning with some of the worst help in modern NBA history.

Nobody, rightfully, views Thomas winning in 89 and 90 like those 3 above titles because his help was considerably better.

Winning, even with great help, is really hard. We don't include Giannis from 2021 or Curry from 2022 on that rare list above because we all know just how good their help actually was. Jrue and Middleton weren't technically All-NBA that year, but we all know how good they were. The same goes for guys like Dumars, Laimbeer, Rodman, Augire, Vinnie...etc.

At the very least, before one starts saying Jokic can't win when he's become this good...I think we'd need to see him with a team that either has a legit and consistent 2nd guy in the mold of most title teams...or a well-balanced / deep supporting cast that doesn't get utterly destroyed when Jokic leaves the court.

I've said this on repeat and nobody responds because it destroys the narrative...

22 Nuggets without Jokic on court...-8 points per 100
23 Nuggets without Jokic on court...-11.1 points per 100

Maybe that shifts in the playoffs with longer minutes for starters or something and he gets the help he needs. If so, and he doesn't play great and they lose...I'm all for the fair criticism. But it's just hard for me to go hard on a guy putting up like 30/12/5 on high efficiency in the years in question in the playoffs without a ton of legit help.

[post]

new game called chip or no chip

jokic/porter for tatum/horford

chip or no chip for boston

[Real Men Wear Green]

new game called chip or no chip

jokic/porter for tatum/horford

chip or no chip for boston

Either way Robert Williams would have to be healthy. Williams could absolutely cover for what Jokic may lack defensively.. Brown could be th he go-tob perimeter scorer. Thinking about Porter in Tatum's place the defense would take a large hit is the main problem.

[DMAVS41]

new game called chip or no chip

jokic/porter for tatum/horford

chip or no chip for boston

Nothing for certain, of course, but it would be really hard to beat that Celtics team with Jokic/Porter.

The Celtics are currently +.5 points per 100 possessions when Tatum is off the court. So they are still actually outscoring teams without their best player. Yes, the defense would dip in this trade, but the Celtics have enough depth on that end to still be one of the better defenses in the league...and the offense would take a noticeable step up in my opinion.

The current Nuggets have the 2nd best offense and 17th ranked defense. They also happen to have a terrible bench.

The Celtics, with that trade, would probably go from the 4th best offense to the best or 2nd best in the league...and the defense would not fall out of the top 8 in my opinion....combine that with having a positive or neutral bench without their star...and you get a team that would be extremely difficult to beat.

Just imagine the current Nuggets, but given them a top 8 defense and a bench that is +.5 points per 100 instead of -11 points per 100...what would their record be? I mean, they'd probably have like 7 less losses or something.

[BigShotBob]

Klay Thompson > Jokic is literally one of the dumbest things that's ever been posted on here.

Any given night Klay could potentially outplay Jokic. I'm not sure what kind of scorer you Jokic is but there were a couple games in the playoffs last year where Jokic barely outscored Klay.


So did Dirk, Hakeem, Duncan, Giannis, Curry...etc.

I wasn't arguing it "can't" be done in some technical sense. It is simply shorthand for the kind of help Jokic has in comparison to virtually every single star teams that have won. If Jokic won a title with this current team...he'd enter the rare space of 94 Hakeem, 03 Duncan, and 11 Dirk as winning with some of the worst help in modern NBA history.

Nobody, rightfully, views Thomas winning in 89 and 90 like those 3 above titles because his help was considerably better.

Winning, even with great help, is really hard. We don't include Giannis from 2021 or Curry from 2022 on that rare list above because we all know just how good their help actually was. Jrue and Middleton weren't technically All-NBA that year, but we all know how good they were. The same goes for guys like Dumars, Laimbeer, Rodman, Augire, Vinnie...etc.

At the very least, before one starts saying Jokic can't win when he's become this good...I think we'd need to see him with a team that either has a legit and consistent 2nd guy in the mold of most title teams...or a well-balanced / deep supporting cast that doesn't get utterly destroyed when Jokic leaves the court.

I've said this on repeat and nobody responds because it destroys the narrative...

22 Nuggets without Jokic on court...-8 points per 100
23 Nuggets without Jokic on court...-11.1 points per 100

Maybe that shifts in the playoffs with longer minutes for starters or something and he gets the help he needs. If so, and he doesn't play great and they lose...I'm all for the fair criticism. But it's just hard for me to go hard on a guy putting up like 30/12/5 on high efficiency in the years in question in the playoffs without a ton of legit help.

So Jrue Holiday is All-NBA "caliber" but Jamal Murray isn't.....is that what you're trying to say? Khris Middleton and MPJ both average almost the same exact stat-line. One's been healthy (until recently) and the other hasn't. That's it.

What other excuses do you have ready made for Jokic now?

Nuggets are getting destroyed with Jokic too. Again, I don't think he's the player you assume him to be. The hypothetical Jokic that exists in your mind hasn't shown his face outside of the Bubble.

[DMAVS41]

Any given night Klay could potentially outplay Jokic. I'm not sure what kind of scorer you Jokic is but there were a couple games in the playoffs last year where Jokic barely outscored Klay.



So Jrue Holiday is All-NBA "caliber" but Jamal Murray isn't.....is that what you're trying to say? Khris Middleton and MPJ both average almost the same exact stat-line. One's been healthy (until recently) and the other hasn't. That's it.

What other excuses do you have ready made for Jokic now?

Nuggets are getting destroyed with Jokic too. Again, I don't think he's the player you assume him to be. The hypothetical Jokic that exists in your mind hasn't shown his face outside of the Bubble.

The Nuggets are getting destroyed with Jokic too? What? The Nuggets are ****ing dominating with Jokic on the court. They are destroying teams to the tune of +12.2 points per 100 possessions with him on the court. Do you expect to be taken seriously?

Jokic is better now than he was in the bubble...his team...in terms of their capabilities without him on the court...is worse. Yes, they have a higher ceiling with him, but they have been terrible for 2 years now without him.

Yes, Jrue Holiday from 21 is a clear cut better player than the current version of Murray. It isn't even close for me right now. Now, tell me that Murray is back to playing like he was before the injury a couple years ago...and I'd agree with you that it is close enough to talk, but I'm still taking Jrue in the playoffs given his elite defense. Please don't reply with Murray's counting stats...he is not playing at the same level he was in 2020. What is funny, is that it is actually Murray that hasn't done anything since the bubble. Jokic is clearly better since then...you have it ass backwards, as usual.

What you need to explain, if this current Nuggets team is on par with the 21 Bucks in terms of supporting cast, why the Nuggets are -11.1 points per 100 without Jokic and the Bucks were +1.7 points per 100 without Giannis. I'm not even arguing that numbers like that are the end all / bel all...as there is noise and conceivably a team could be really top heavy and on/off just wouldn't matter that much.

But in the case of Jokic...he doesn't really have either. He doesn't have a Pippen or Gasol or Kobe or Wade or Pierce...and his team falls apart without him.

[ShawkFactory]

The Nuggets are getting destroyed with Jokic too? What? The Nuggets are ****ing dominating with Jokic on the court. They are destroying teams to the tune of +12.2 points per 100 possessions with him on the court. Do you expect to be taken seriously?

Jokic is better now than he was in the bubble...his team...in terms of their capabilities without him on the court...is worse. Yes, they have a higher ceiling with him, but they have been terrible for 2 years now without him.

Yes, Jrue Holiday from 21 is a clear cut better player than the current version of Murray. It isn't even close for me right now. Now, tell me that Murray is back to playing like he was before the injury a couple years ago...and I'd agree with you that it is close enough to talk, but I'm still taking Jrue in the playoffs given his elite defense.

What you need to explain, if this current Nuggets team is on par with the 21 Bucks in terms of supporting cast, why the Nuggets are -11.1 points per 100 without Jokic and the Bucks were +1.7 points per 100 without Jokic. I'm not even arguing that numbers like that are the end all / bel all...as there is noise and conceivably a team could be really top heavy and on/off just wouldn't matter that much.

But in the case of Jokic...he doesn't really have either. He doesn't have a Pippen or Gasol or Kobe or Wade or Pierce...and his team falls apart without him.

He just argued that Klay > Jokic because he “could potentially” outscore him on any given night. I don’t think we need to hear too much more from him on the Jokic subject.

[post]

Either way Robert Williams would have to be healthy. Williams could absolutely cover for what Jokic may lack defensively.. Brown could be th he go-tob perimeter scorer. Thinking about Porter in Tatum's place the defense would take a large hit is the main problem.


Nothing for certain, of course, but it would be really hard to beat that Celtics team with Jokic/Porter.

The Celtics are currently +.5 points per 100 possessions when Tatum is off the court. So they are still actually outscoring teams without their best player. Yes, the defense would dip in this trade, but the Celtics have enough depth on that end to still be one of the better defenses in the league...and the offense would take a noticeable step up in my opinion.

The current Nuggets have the 2nd best offense and 17th ranked defense. They also happen to have a terrible bench.

The Celtics, with that trade, would probably go from the 4th best offense to the best or 2nd best in the league...and the defense would not fall out of the top 8 in my opinion....combine that with having a positive or neutral bench without their star...and you get a team that would be extremely difficult to beat.

Just imagine the current Nuggets, but given them a top 8 defense and a bench that is +.5 points per 100 instead of -11 points per 100...what would their record be? I mean, they'd probably have like 7 less losses or something.

https://i.ibb.co/fF4kkG6/818k1-CLb-Ub-L-AC-UF350-350-QL50.jpg

[BigShotBob]

The Nuggets are getting destroyed with Jokic too? What? The Nuggets are ****ing dominating with Jokic on the court. They are destroying teams to the tune of +12.2 points per 100 possessions with him on the court. Do you expect to be taken seriously?

Jokic is better now than he was in the bubble...his team...in terms of their capabilities without him on the court...is worse. Yes, they have a higher ceiling with him, but they have been terrible for 2 years now without him.

Yes, Jrue Holiday from 21 is a clear cut better player than the current version of Murray. It isn't even close for me right now. Now, tell me that Murray is back to playing like he was before the injury a couple years ago...and I'd agree with you that it is close enough to talk, but I'm still taking Jrue in the playoffs given his elite defense. Please don't reply with Murray's counting stats...he is not playing at the same level he was in 2020. What is funny, is that it is actually Murray that hasn't done anything since the bubble. Jokic is clearly better since then...you have it ass backwards, as usual.

What you need to explain, if this current Nuggets team is on par with the 21 Bucks in terms of supporting cast, why the Nuggets are -11.1 points per 100 without Jokic and the Bucks were +1.7 points per 100 without Giannis. I'm not even arguing that numbers like that are the end all / bel all...as there is noise and conceivably a team could be really top heavy and on/off just wouldn't matter that much.

But in the case of Jokic...he doesn't really have either. He doesn't have a Pippen or Gasol or Kobe or Wade or Pierce...and his team falls apart without him.

Nuggets just lost 3 in a row in and Jokic was outplayed by Vucevic (what happened to that +12.2 points per possession?) He's also been eviscerated by Embiid this year (what happened to that +12.2 points per possession?) He was also outplayed by Tyus Jones less than a month ago (what happened?)

I know you like watching Jokic get his 30 point triple doubles against the Spurs in a loss or other middling/fodder teams that he will never face in the post season, but the best he can do is lead the Nuggets in the most hobbled Western Conference in decades and still end up having a worse record than 3 other teams in the opposite conference.

You're comparing 21 Jrue Holiday to a recovering Jamal Murray....okay.

Giannis has 0 players averaging 20 or more on his team.

0.

None.

Jokic has Jamal Murray, who averages more points than Jrue, MPJ, who averages more points than Middleton, and Aaron Gordon, who averages more points than Boddy Portis.

That's all Giannis has. And they still have more wins than the Nuggets who have been healthier.

I wonder what the common denominator is?

Maybe if Jokic could anchor a top flight defense.

Jrue Holiday hasn't done anything outside of the Bucks, and even with them he's on the same level as Jamal Murray. Jrue provides defense and playmaking but he's a pedestrian scorer. Giannis could never rely on Jrue to outscore him (like when Jokic relied on him when Jokic was being outplayed by CJ McCollum)

Jokic has a very solid team but he doesn't have the defensive capabilities of an Embiid or a Giannis to anchor it and set the defensive precedent.


He just argued that Klay > Jokic because he “could potentially” outscore him on any given night. I don’t think we need to hear too much more from him on the Jokic subject.

If CJ McCollum could outplay Jokic in a game 7 (and I mean severely outplay him), so could Klay. Jokic isn't the scorer you think he is. He's not Giannis or Embiid level of dominant.

[DMAVS41]

Nuggets just lost 3 in a row in and Jokic was outplayed by Vucevic (what happened to that +12.2 points per possession?) He's also been eviscerated by Embiid this year (what happened to that +12.2 points per possession?) He was also outplayed by Tyus Jones less than a month ago (what happened?)

I know you like watching Jokic get his 30 point triple doubles against the Spurs in a loss or other middling/fodder teams that he will never face in the post season, but the best he can do is lead the Nuggets in the most hobbled Western Conference in decades and still end up having a worse record than 3 other teams in the opposite conference.

You're comparing 21 Jrue Holiday to a recovering Jamal Murray....okay.

Giannis has 0 players averaging 20 or more on his team.

0.

None.

Jokic has Jamal Murray, who averages more points than Jrue, MPJ, who averages more points than Middleton, and Aaron Gordon, who averages more points than Boddy Portis.

That's all Giannis has. And they still have more wins than the Nuggets who have been healthier.

I wonder what the common denominator is?

Maybe if Jokic could anchor a top flight defense.

Jrue Holiday hasn't done anything outside of the Bucks, and even with them he's on the same level as Jamal Murray. Jrue provides defense and playmaking but he's a pedestrian scorer. Giannis could never rely on Jrue to outscore him (like when Jokic relied on him when Jokic was being outplayed by CJ McCollum)

Jokic has a very solid team but he doesn't have the defensive capabilities of an Embiid or a Giannis to anchor it and set the defensive precedent.



If CJ McCollum could outplay Jokic in a game 7 (and I mean severely outplay him), so could Klay. Jokic isn't the scorer you think he is. He's not Giannis or Embiid level of dominant.

We are not talking about Jokic over the last 3 games. We are talking about the type of player he is, I guess, over the last 3 seasons or so based on your takes. What I stated it a fact. It is an inconvenient fact for you and similar haters that when Jokic is on the floor this season...the Nuggets have, overall, destroyed teams...and when he goes to the bench or doesn't play...his team gets destroyed.

You know it would be unfair to hold Jokic accountable to a large degree for that...so you shift the argument to other things that don't even matter. Again, if Murray or Gordon or anyone you want to name on the Nuggets was so good...they would not be getting destroyed this badly without Jokic on the court for now a 2 full season sample in terms of his supporting cast overall.

This isn't hard to understand...and none of the above means that Jokic is better than Giannis or Joel or Durant or Curry or whoever else you want to name...it just means that holding him to certain standards is grossly unfair given his circumstances...and again, this year isn't even over yet....

Can we at least give him a chance with likely the highest ceiling team he's ever had if they are healthy this playoffs?

Again, I heard the same old shit about Dirk...even after 03 and 06...where he played the most minutes on teams that finished top 10 (iirc) in defense. Even when he led an underdog Mavs team to the finals after beating the Spurs in the midst of what likely would have been a 3 peat...going head to head with Duncan and putting up 27/13/3 65% TS with a game 7 road win of 37/15/3 68%TS...people still told me he can't win.

The truth is, guys like Dirk and Jokic are held to unfair standards by most fans because of preconceived notions about playing styles and winning.

If Jokic never wins, even with great help, I'll be right there with you...I'm just not going to pretend he's worse than he is by only looking at results when much worse players have won titles...they just had way more help.

And I would also like you to reflect on why you think Joel is so much better when Joel has never even been out of the 2nd round. Again, it's perfectly reasonable to take Joel over Jokic...I personally would, but your reasoning is flawed. Someone that doesn't like Joel would just throw your logic right back at you...can't get it done in the playoffs...never even made it out of the 2nd round...LOL..."he's not as good as you think he is, watch him cry some more when he loses again...etc...etc...etc."

[tontoz]

:oldlol: this clown just has to bring up game 7 from 4 years ago, a game where Jokic had 29/13 while Murray got merked by CJ. Murray was 4-18 and Millsap was 3-13.

But let's blame Jokic who was the best player in the series by far.

BTW the bucks are 9-5 in the games Giannis didn't play.

[ShawkFactory]

If CJ McCollum could outplay Jokic in a game 7 (and I mean severely outplay him), so could Klay. Jokic isn't the scorer you think he is. He's not Giannis or Embiid level of dominant.

Oh? Tell me what type of scorer I think he is..

It's not even about the Klay>Jokic comment, which is obviously ridiculous, but the reasoning behind it. Because someone has the potential to outscore (outscore..not outplay; an important distinction that you seem to be completely ignoring) them in a game is really the argument you're making? NBA players don't sometimes get outscored in certain games by players they're better than?

It's clear that you have an issue with Jokic, and that you absolutely no ability to be objective when he's in the discussion. Which is fine, but don't pretend that it's anything more.

[tontoz]

Oh? Tell me what type of scorer I think he is..

It's not even about the Klay>Jokic comment, which is obviously ridiculous, but the reasoning behind it. Because someone has the potential to outscore (outscore..not outplay; an important distinction that you seem to be completely ignoring) them in a game is really the argument you're making? NBA players don't sometimes get outscored in certain games by players they're better than?

It's clear that you have an issue with Jokic, and that you absolutely no ability to be objective when he's in the discussion. Which is fine, but don't pretend that it's anything more.



The funny thing is that the leading scorer in that 2019 series was Jokic. Not only did he lead the series in ppg but he also had the best scoring efficiency of anyone in the series.

[ShawkFactory]

The funny thing is that the leading scorer in that 2019 series was Jokic. Not only did he lead the series in ppg but he also had the best scoring efficiency of anyone in the series.

For real. You can make the argument for so many guys being better than others if the criteria is simply it's possible that they score more than them in a game.

[DMAVS41]

Some more context because I was curious.

With Jokic on the court, the Nuggets have a 126 offensive rating...which we would by far the best in the league. No team is over 120 overall.

Without Jokic on the court, the Nuggets have a 106 offensive rating...which we would be the worst in the league. No team is under 109 overall.

The defense also gets worse, although nowhere near to the extreme levels of the offense, when Jokic is not on the court as well. When Jokic is on the court, the Nuggets have right at about the 11th best defense, when he isn't....they have right around the 25th ranked defense.

Contrast this with Joel...

When Joel is on the court, the Sixers have a great 121 ortg...when he's off...they have a 116.5 ortg...good enough for top 7 in the league without him on the court. When Joel is on the court, they have the 4th best defense...when he's off, they have the 22nd best defense.

So just to make it clear...when Jokic and Joel have not been on the court this year...

Nuggets would have the worst offense in the league and the 25th ranked defense
Sixers would have the 7th best offense in the league and the 22nd ranked defense

Again, I think Joel deserves MVP and I'd probably take him as the better player, but ignoring the above is rather silly.

Lastly, the Sixers are 9-4 without Joel this year and the Nuggets are 3-5 without Jokic.

[SouBeachTalents]

Holy shit

Klay > Jokic

Murray & Porter as good as Middleton & Jrue based solely on ppg. Anyone think the Nuggets clinch the conference finals if Jokic misses the last 2 games of the series :lol

And his insistence on bringing up that one Game 7 from FOUR years ago, two years before Jokic reached his current peak level of play, like that means anything. I could bring up an endless list of Game 7's where ATG's got outplayed by inferior players, I guarantee Kobe had multiple instances of that.

[BarberSchool]

Nash's own teammate Shawn Marion led the team in everything but points, including most of the advanced stuff in '06 but no one gave a shit lol. The NBA had a clear agenda with the Nash MVPs after the Brawl happened. They were trying to move away from the hip hop/thug image they had attained.Right, the primarily Jewish owners and commish seem to do a fairly bad/obvious kneejerk reaction when their product loses appeal to the widest global audience, and what we are witnessing with the current international dominance, is partially real, (all the international stars do have legit too tier talent) but partially by design to attempt to repair the damage to viewership the league incurred during the BLM activism, when finals viewership was down by over half for several years. This same cyclic subversion / apologetic behavior cycle can also be seen in the investment worlds, and in the political worlds.

Why can’t these people of enormous wealth and influence, just let the natural order of things play out ? Their addiction to the idea of manipulation has corrupted nearly every industry it has touched. Pro Sports, while far from perfect, are in part so very popular because they are the most honest competitive entertainment available. But that honest meritocracy is infringed upon more each year it seems.

[BarberSchool]

Some more context because I was curious.

With Jokic on the court, the Nuggets have a 126 offensive rating...which we would by far the best in the league. No team is over 120 overall.

Without Jokic on the court, the Nuggets have a 106 offensive rating...which we would be the worst in the league. No team is under 109 overall.

The defense also gets worse, although nowhere near to the extreme levels of the offense, when Jokic is not on the court as well. When Jokic is on the court, the Nuggets have right at about the 11th best defense, when he isn't....they have right around the 25th ranked defense.

Contrast this with Joel...

When Joel is on the court, the Sixers have a great 121 ortg...when he's off...they have a 116.5 ortg...good enough for top 7 in the league without him on the court. When Joel is on the court, they have the 4th best defense...when he's off, they have the 22nd best defense.

So just to make it clear...when Jokic and Joel have not been on the court this year...

Nuggets would have the worst offense in the league and the 25th ranked defense
Sixers would have the 7th best offense in the league and the 22nd ranked defense

Again, I think Joel deserves MVP and I'd probably take him as the better player, but ignoring the above is rather silly.

Lastly, the Sixers are 9-4 without Joel this year and the Nuggets are 3-5 without Jokic.

Offensive rating differential is one of many metrics, that while it has value over large sample sizes, it still has many moving parts to it, and when applied to an individual versus an entire lineup, reads less clearly.

[DMAVS41]

Offensive rating differential is one of many metrics, that while it has value over large sample sizes, it still has many moving parts to it, and when applied to an individual versus an entire lineup, reads less clearly.

True...as I have said...no metric is perfect and there is noise, even in large samples, to on/off data.

However, given the evidence we have over the last 2 full seasons to date...I think it is more than fair to say that when Jokic is on the court for the Nuggets...they are an elite offense...and when he's not on the court...they are really poor.

That combined with them being +10.1 points per 100 with Jokic on court and -9.5 points per 100 without Jokic on the court over the last 137 games...

I think it is more than fair to start drawing some conclusions about the strength of this team in terms of surviving minutes without Jokic. They clearly, in part due to the supporting cast as well, have a very high ceiling with Jokic on the floor...that matters and these numbers probably paint the Nuggets as worse than they actually are. However, I'm not aware of many teams in history that have championship success being that bad with their star off the court.

The 11 Mavs comes to mind just because I know it, probably other examples. They were +10.6 points per 100 with Dirk and -5.4 points per 100 without him. I'd imagine that is quite rare historically...and even that doesn't really come close to how bad the Nuggets have been this year without Jokic.

The past few Champs supporting casts without star in regular season...points per 100

Warriors +.1
Bucks +1.7
Lakers -.9
Raptors +3.2
Warriors +1.1
Warriors -.1
Cavs -4.3
Warriors -1.4
Spurs +6.3
Heat -2.1
Heat -3.6
Mavs -5.4
Lakers -3.8
Lakers -.1
Celtics +4.6

No team has come close to having a double digit negative points per 100 differential and won a title in the last 15 years. And, even then, some of the above is misleading as a lot of those teams had 2 and 3 stars...so they had even higher ceilings on how good they could be with their best players. Jokic is essentially missing both...he doesn't have a Wade/Pierce/Durant/Gasol/Kyrie...etc....level player and he doesn't have a strong bench either.

[BigShotBob]

We are not talking about Jokic over the last 3 games. We are talking about the type of player he is, I guess, over the last 3 seasons or so based on your takes. What I stated it a fact. It is an inconvenient fact for you and similar haters that when Jokic is on the floor this season...the Nuggets have, overall, destroyed teams...and when he goes to the bench or doesn't play...his team gets destroyed.

You know it would be unfair to hold Jokic accountable to a large degree for that...so you shift the argument to other things that don't even matter. Again, if Murray or Gordon or anyone you want to name on the Nuggets was so good...they would not be getting destroyed this badly without Jokic on the court for now a 2 full season sample in terms of his supporting cast overall.

This isn't hard to understand...and none of the above means that Jokic is better than Giannis or Joel or Durant or Curry or whoever else you want to name...it just means that holding him to certain standards is grossly unfair given his circumstances...and again, this year isn't even over yet....

Can we at least give him a chance with likely the highest ceiling team he's ever had if they are healthy this playoffs?

Again, I heard the same old shit about Dirk...even after 03 and 06...where he played the most minutes on teams that finished top 10 (iirc) in defense. Even when he led an underdog Mavs team to the finals after beating the Spurs in the midst of what likely would have been a 3 peat...going head to head with Duncan and putting up 27/13/3 65% TS with a game 7 road win of 37/15/3 68%TS...people still told me he can't win.

The truth is, guys like Dirk and Jokic are held to unfair standards by most fans because of preconceived notions about playing styles and winning.

If Jokic never wins, even with great help, I'll be right there with you...I'm just not going to pretend he's worse than he is by only looking at results when much worse players have won titles...they just had way more help.

And I would also like you to reflect on why you think Joel is so much better when Joel has never even been out of the 2nd round. Again, it's perfectly reasonable to take Joel over Jokic...I personally would, but your reasoning is flawed. Someone that doesn't like Joel would just throw your logic right back at you...can't get it done in the playoffs...never even made it out of the 2nd round...LOL..."he's not as good as you think he is, watch him cry some more when he loses again...etc...etc...etc."

An inconvenient truth is that the Nuggets aren't all that great with him either. Offensively they're good but again, two sides of the ball. Defensively they are mediocre.

Again, they have better scoring potential than all of Giannis's teammates. You can blame the coaching staff for all I care. If you want to use stats then we can use the stats and the stats show Jokic has more scoring help than Giannis does.

Yes holding Jokic to Giannis/Embiid/Curry/KD standards isn't fair because he's not good enough. Glad we agree.

No because you want Jokic to play with 2-3 all-stars and/or a superstar and then give him all the credit. If he needs all of that then maybe he isn't who you think he is.

Dirk was a choke artist until he wasn't. Let's be real about it.

No it's because for how good Dirk was on offense, he wasn't a Tim Duncan, and he wasn't a culture setter like Chris Webber, or a pivotal piece to an underdog team like Rasheed Wallace, he was the odd man out until he got over the hump and proved people wrong.

Joel didn't need the bubble to get out of the 2nd round. There. The end. Outside of the bubble Jokic isn't who you think he is.

I don't hold the Warriors series against him by the way, but he's done nothing outside of that yet.

He hasn't proven to be the player you think he is.


this clown just has to bring up game 7 from 4 years ago, a game where Jokic had 29/13 while Murray got merked by CJ. Murray was 4-18 and Millsap was 3-13.

But let's blame Jokic who was the best player in the series by far.

BTW the bucks are 9-5 in the games Giannis didn't play.

Jokic got murked in that game 7 and missed a very crucial free throw.

Name the teams the Bucks beat without Giannis and when you do you'll learn how low IQ your take is.


Oh? Tell me what type of scorer I think he is..

It's not even about the Klay>Jokic comment, which is obviously ridiculous, but the reasoning behind it. Because someone has the potential to outscore (outscore..not outplay; an important distinction that you seem to be completely ignoring) them in a game is really the argument you're making? NBA players don't sometimes get outscored in certain games by players they're better than?

It's clear that you have an issue with Jokic, and that you absolutely no ability to be objective when he's in the discussion. Which is fine, but don't pretend that it's anything more.

The kind of scorer who has 1 40 point playoff game in his career so far.

If we were talking about Giannis/Embiid/Curry/Luka that wouldn't be a thought. Klay has no chance to outscore them, but since Jokic isn't an explosive scorer, he can't be given to that credence.

[BigShotBob]

Some more context because I was curious.

With Jokic on the court, the Nuggets have a 126 offensive rating...which we would by far the best in the league. No team is over 120 overall.

Without Jokic on the court, the Nuggets have a 106 offensive rating...which we would be the worst in the league. No team is under 109 overall.

The defense also gets worse, although nowhere near to the extreme levels of the offense, when Jokic is not on the court as well. When Jokic is on the court, the Nuggets have right at about the 11th best defense, when he isn't....they have right around the 25th ranked defense.

Contrast this with Joel...

When Joel is on the court, the Sixers have a great 121 ortg...when he's off...they have a 116.5 ortg...good enough for top 7 in the league without him on the court. When Joel is on the court, they have the 4th best defense...when he's off, they have the 22nd best defense.

So just to make it clear...when Jokic and Joel have not been on the court this year...

Nuggets would have the worst offense in the league and the 25th ranked defense
Sixers would have the 7th best offense in the league and the 22nd ranked defense

Again, I think Joel deserves MVP and I'd probably take him as the better player, but ignoring the above is rather silly.

Lastly, the Sixers are 9-4 without Joel this year and the Nuggets are 3-5 without Jokic.

We're using offensive rating now?

Kings are number 1 in Offensive Efficiency Rating. Philly is 3rd behind the Nuggets. Milaukee is 13th and still has a better record than Jokic (who has more offensive help now?)

Defensive Rating on the other hand....Bucks are 3rd. Nuggets are 18th. Philly is 8th.

So with Jokic compared to his big men contemporaries he's anchoring a pedestrian defense, has more offensive help than both Philly and Milaukee, and still has won less games than them.


Holy shit

Klay > Jokic

Murray & Porter as good as Middleton & Jrue based solely on ppg. Anyone think the Nuggets clinch the conference finals if Jokic misses the last 2 games of the series

And his insistence on bringing up that one Game 7 from FOUR years ago, two years before Jokic reached his current peak level of play, like that means anything. I could bring up an endless list of Game 7's where ATG's got outplayed by inferior players, I guarantee Kobe had multiple instances of that.

If Jokic played the Hawks with an injured Trae Young? Yes he isn't needed for Jamal Murray, MPJ, and Aaron Gordon to beat them.

Funny how Jokic is at his peak play now. We'll see what excuses you use when he finds himself out of the 2nd Round again.

Being outplayed by CJ McCollum is all-time bad. Just like Lebron being outscored by Jason Terry. You blaming Jokic's team for it is like a Lebron stan blaming the Heat for Lebron being outplayed by Jason Terry.

[BarberSchool]

True...as I have said...no metric is perfect and there is noise, even in large samples, to on/off data.

However, given the evidence we have over the last 2 full seasons to date...I think it is more than fair to say that when Jokic is on the court for the Nuggets...they are an elite offense...and when he's not on the court...they are really poor.

That combined with them being +10.1 points per 100 with Jokic on court and -9.5 points per 100 without Jokic on the court over the last 137 games...

I think it is more than fair to start drawing some conclusions about the strength of this team in terms of surviving minutes without Jokic. They clearly, in part due to the supporting cast as well, have a very high ceiling with Jokic on the floor...that matters and these numbers probably paint the Nuggets as worse than they actually are. However, I'm not aware of many teams in history that have championship success being that bad with their star off the court.

The 11 Mavs comes to mind just because I know it, probably other examples. They were +10.6 points per 100 with Dirk and -5.4 points per 100 without him. I'd imagine that is quite rare historically...and even that doesn't really come close to how bad the Nuggets have been this year without Jokic.

The past few Champs supporting casts without star in regular season...points per 100

Warriors +.1
Bucks +1.7
Lakers -.9
Raptors +3.2
Warriors +1.1
Warriors -.1
Cavs -4.3
Warriors -1.4
Spurs +6.3
Heat -2.1
Heat -3.6
Mavs -5.4
Lakers -3.8
Lakers -.1
Celtics +4.6

No team has come close to having a double digit negative points per 100 differential and won a title in the last 15 years.



I agree with a significant amount of what you said. And I hope we get a Bucks vs Nuggets finals this year, after a great ECF between and Bucks & Celtics, and a great WCSF & WCF featuring GSW & Denver.

The MVP race for me is 1. Giannis & 2. Jokic.
Giannis is the better overall player on both sides of the ball, despite Jokic being drastically better offensively with insane efficiency and quality shot creation for others (all assists are not equal)

[ShawkFactory]

An inconvenient truth is that the Nuggets aren't all that great with him either. Offensively they're good but again, two sides of the ball. Defensively they are mediocre.

Again, they have better scoring potential than all of Giannis's teammates. You can blame the coaching staff for all I care. If you want to use stats then we can use the stats and the stats show Jokic has more scoring help than Giannis does.

Yes holding Jokic to Giannis/Embiid/Curry/KD standards isn't fair because he's not good enough. Glad we agree.

No because you want Jokic to play with 2-3 all-stars and/or a superstar and then give him all the credit. If he needs all of that then maybe he isn't who you think he is.

Dirk was a choke artist until he wasn't. Let's be real about it.

No it's because for how good Dirk was on offense, he wasn't a Tim Duncan, and he wasn't a culture setter like Chris Webber, or a pivotal piece to an underdog team like Rasheed Wallace, he was the odd man out until he got over the hump and proved people wrong.

Joel didn't need the bubble to get out of the 2nd round. There. The end. Outside of the bubble Jokic isn't who you think he is.

I don't hold the Warriors series against him by the way, but he's done nothing outside of that yet.

He hasn't proven to be the player you think he is.



Jokic got murked in that game 7 and missed a very crucial free throw.

Name the teams the Bucks beat without Giannis and when you do you'll learn how low IQ your take is.



The kind of scorer who has 1 40 point playoff game in his career so far.

If we were talking about Giannis/Embiid/Curry/Luka that wouldn't be a thought. Klay has no chance to outscore them, but since Jokic isn't an explosive scorer, he can't be given to that credence.

Klay has outscored Curry in MANY games. He outscored KD in playoff games. Is he better?

Embiid got massively outplayed over an entire series by Pascal Siakam the same year as this one CJ McCollum game you keep talking about (because you don’t have much else).

Giannis was outplayed by Jimmy Butler and Khris Middleton in the same series a year later.

You have no consistency in your arguments.

[DMAVS41]

We're using offensive rating now?

Kings are number 1 in Offensive Efficiency Rating. Philly is 3rd behind the Nuggets. Milaukee is 13th and still has a better record than Jokic (who has more offensive help now?)

Defensive Rating on the other hand....Bucks are 3rd. Nuggets are 18th. Philly is 8th.

So with Jokic compared to his big men contemporaries he's anchoring a pedestrian defense, has more offensive help than both Philly and Milaukee, and still has won less games than them.



If Jokic played the Hawks with an injured Trae Young? Yes he isn't needed for Jamal Murray, MPJ, and Aaron Gordon to beat them.

Funny how Jokic is at his peak play now. We'll see what excuses you use when he finds himself out of the 2nd Round again.

Being outplayed by CJ McCollum is all-time bad. Just like Lebron being outscored by Jason Terry. You blaming Jokic's team for it is like a Lebron stan blaming the Heat for Lebron being outplayed by Jason Terry.

What I'm trying to do is educate you on how those overall ratings you posted are being dragged down by how bad the Nuggets have been with Jokic off the floor. When Jokic is on the court...they have a 126 offensive rating...if you aren't a biased jack-ass...you should care about that...and care about how the Nuggets without Jokic have what would be, by far, the worst offense in the league this year.

You might be a little out of your depth here...you seem incapable of understanding that there are minutes in which guys like Jokic / Giannis / Joel...aren't on the court...and in those minutes...the Bucks and Sixers have performed significantly better than the Nuggets.

Again, people that actually care about reality...would acknowledge that.

So when you boast about the Sixers ranking 3rd in offense...you have to understand that they have a 116.5 ortg without Joel. That would rank 7th in the league currently. If, however, they had a 106 ortg like the Nuggets do without Jokic....the Sixers would absolutely not be the 3rd best offense. They'd be like borderline top 20.

Now, you are absolutely right that Jokic is not anchoring a top defense. However, again, the Nuggets get worse without Jokic on the court on defense as well. It would be like getting mad at Joel for only having the 8th best defense on the Sixers. He deserves way more credit than that...the Sixers fall off dramatically without him and any analysis that doesn't factor that in...is flawed.

My guess is that you'd want to acknowledge that for Joel, but not Jokic...for some stupid reason. Doesn't matter...you are wrong.

[1987_Lakers]

BigShotBob making a fool of himself again, what else is new?

[Axe]

BSB and ImKobe.

Lol these guys can have insanely absurd takes at times.

[tontoz]

Jokic got murked in that game 7 and missed a very crucial free throw.



No he didn't. Jokic dropped 29/13 in game 7.

Murray is the one that got merked, shooting 4-18 while CJ went off.

Pretty sure Jokic wasn't the primary defender on CJ.

Not only did Jokic leads the series in scoring and scoring efficiency, he also led the series in rebounds and assists. He was the best player in the series by far.

[DMAVS41]

An inconvenient truth is that the Nuggets aren't all that great with him either. Offensively they're good but again, two sides of the ball. Defensively they are mediocre.

Again, they have better scoring potential than all of Giannis's teammates. You can blame the coaching staff for all I care. If you want to use stats then we can use the stats and the stats show Jokic has more scoring help than Giannis does.

Yes holding Jokic to Giannis/Embiid/Curry/KD standards isn't fair because he's not good enough. Glad we agree.

No because you want Jokic to play with 2-3 all-stars and/or a superstar and then give him all the credit. If he needs all of that then maybe he isn't who you think he is.

Dirk was a choke artist until he wasn't. Let's be real about it.

No it's because for how good Dirk was on offense, he wasn't a Tim Duncan, and he wasn't a culture setter like Chris Webber, or a pivotal piece to an underdog team like Rasheed Wallace, he was the odd man out until he got over the hump and proved people wrong.

Joel didn't need the bubble to get out of the 2nd round. There. The end. Outside of the bubble Jokic isn't who you think he is.

I don't hold the Warriors series against him by the way, but he's done nothing outside of that yet.

He hasn't proven to be the player you think he is.



Jokic got murked in that game 7 and missed a very crucial free throw.

Name the teams the Bucks beat without Giannis and when you do you'll learn how low IQ your take is.



The kind of scorer who has 1 40 point playoff game in his career so far.

If we were talking about Giannis/Embiid/Curry/Luka that wouldn't be a thought. Klay has no chance to outscore them, but since Jokic isn't an explosive scorer, he can't be given to that credence.

I can't even make sense of this. The Nuggets have been fantastic with Jokic on the court all year. If you can't acknowledge that...you simply are denying reality.

What? Joel has never made it out of the 2nd round.

No, Dirk, once we got to the 02 season...was one of the best players in the league and on his way to being one of the best players ever...his teams overachieved in the playoffs more than they underachieved. It was people like you creating narratives that don't even exist...like I said, I've seen it all before....and, how did that work out for them? How do people like you sound now saying "Dirk can never win a title"..."He's a choker"..."He's not that good"....LOL

The best part...even if Jokic never wins anything...he's going to go down, rightfully, as one of the 30 or so best players ever unless he gets injured or something. Sorry if you don't like it...reality doesn't give a shit.

[BigShotBob]

What I'm trying to do is educate you on how those overall ratings you posted are being dragged down by how bad the Nuggets have been with Jokic off the floor. When Jokic is on the court...they have a 126 offensive rating...if you aren't a biased jack-ass...you should care about that...and care about how the Nuggets without Jokic have what would be, by far, the worst offense in the league this year.

You might be a little out of your depth here...you seem incapable of understanding that there are minutes in which guys like Jokic / Giannis / Joel...aren't on the court...and in those minutes...the Bucks and Sixers have performed significantly better than the Nuggets.

Again, people that actually care about reality...would acknowledge that.

So when you boast about the Sixers ranking 3rd in offense...you have to understand that they have a 116.5 ortg without Joel. That would rank 7th in the league currently. If, however, they had a 106 ortg like the Nuggets do without Jokic....the Sixers would absolutely not be the 3rd best offense. They'd be like borderline top 20.

Now, you are absolutely right that Jokic is not anchoring a top defense. However, again, the Nuggets get worse without Jokic on the court on defense as well. It would be like getting mad at Joel for only having the 8th best defense on the Sixers. He deserves way more credit than that...the Sixers fall off dramatically without him and any analysis that doesn't factor that in...is flawed.

My guess is that you'd want to acknowledge that for Joel, but not Jokic...for some stupid reason. Doesn't matter...you are wrong.

They are being dragged down even though statistically the Nuggets have better scorers than Giannis does? Again, you're not going to convince me that players who average more points than Giannis's teammates don't know how to score without Jokic (plus you're not accounting for Murray coming back from injury or who else sits with Jokic).

Blame the coach and the system and Jokic's heliocentric offense, I don't care which. But even now the media and the populace are turning against the "Jokic plays with nobody" narrative.

Again, the Bucks have a lower rating with and without Giannis, meaning that he has less offensive help, but he has won more games. Philly without Embiid becomes one of the worse defensive teams in the league. There are two sides to the ball. Bucks are mediocre offensively with Giannis, but top 3 defensively. Philly is elite offensively and defensively with Embiid, and the Nuggets are elite offensively but piss poor defensively with or without Jokic.

To win you have to be top 10 in both offense and defense generally. Jokic will never anchor a top flight defense so his chances of winning are piss poor. But you want to be disingenuous and pretend like there aren't two sides of the ball.

Compare Jokic to players like Luka, don't compare him to big men that know how to anchor a defense.

[BigShotBob]

I can't even make sense of this. The Nuggets have been fantastic with Jokic on the court all year. If you can't acknowledge that...you simply are denying reality.

What? Joel has never made it out of the 2nd round.

No, Dirk, once we got to the 02 season...was one of the best players in the league and on his way to being one of the best players ever...his teams overachieved in the playoffs more than they underachieved. It was people like you creating narratives that don't even exist...like I said, I've seen it all before....and, how did that work out for them? How do people like you sound now saying "Dirk can never win a title"..."He's a choker"..."He's not that good"....LOL

The best part...even if Jokic never wins anything...he's going to go down, rightfully, as one of the 30 or so best players ever unless he gets injured or something. Sorry if you don't like it...reality doesn't give a shit.

They've been great offensively. Not defensively. Do you only care about offensive rating and TS%? What else is there in basketball that matters to you?

I'm not high on Embiid as you think I am. I just think he's better than Jokic.

I was the main one telling people that overhype KG and his defense how Dirk slaughtered him in 02 in the playoffs. I never hated on Dirk but he did choke in the 06 Finals and in the first round in 07. 2011 he played well throughout and he didn't need a superstar or 2-3 All-NBA players. He just needed a defensive anchor and complementary pieces.

I don't dislike Jokic but he's not 3 MVPs in a row "good"

[DMAVS41]

They are being dragged down even though statistically the Nuggets have better scorers than Giannis does? Again, you're not going to convince me that players who average more points than Giannis's teammates don't know how to score without Jokic (plus you're not accounting for Murray coming back from injury or who else sits with Jokic).

Blame the coach and the system and Jokic's heliocentric offense, I don't care which. But even now the media and the populace are turning against the "Jokic plays with nobody" narrative.

Again, the Bucks have a lower rating with and without Giannis, meaning that he has less offensive help, but he has won more games. Philly without Embiid becomes one of the worse defensive teams in the league. There are two sides to the ball. Bucks are mediocre offensively with Giannis, but top 3 defensively. Philly is elite offensively and defensively with Embiid, and the Nuggets are elite offensively but piss poor defensively with or without Jokic.

To win you have to be top 10 in both offense and defense generally. Jokic will never anchor a top flight defense so his chances of winning are piss poor. But you want to be disingenuous and pretend like there aren't two sides of the ball.

Compare Jokic to players like Luka, don't compare him to big men that know how to anchor a defense.

Murray coming back from injury doesn't somehow make him better. It means he has the potential to be better.

Again, you seem out of your depth here. Jokic could easily have a team top 10 in offense and defense around him. Are you serious? Want to know how I know?

Because....wait for it...the ****ing 2019 Nuggets finished 6th on offense and 10th on defense. Jokic played the most minutes on the team.

:roll::roll:

[DMAVS41]

They've been great offensively. Not defensively. Do you only care about offensive rating and TS%? What else is there in basketball that matters to you?

I'm not high on Embiid as you think I am. I just think he's better than Jokic.

I was the main one telling people that overhype KG and his defense how Dirk slaughtered him in 02 in the playoffs. I never hated on Dirk but he did choke in the 06 Finals and in the first round in 07. 2011 he played well throughout and he didn't need a superstar or 2-3 All-NBA players. He just needed a defensive anchor and complementary pieces.

I don't dislike Jokic but he's not 3 MVPs in a row "good"

Dude...when you outscore the opponent by over 12 points per 100 possessions overall....you have been great overall. Doesn't matter how you do it...if you are outscoring teams by double digits with your best player over nearly 2 full seasons...you are doing something very much right when he's on the court.

Of course defense matters, but there is no perfect player...if Jokic, similar to Dirk, was as good as Duncan on defense...they'd be in talks for the best players ever. Yes, Dirk, like every player ever...had an optimal supporting cast unique to him. Shaq needed two of the best guards ever...Kobe needed maybe the most dominant big ever...and the likes of maybe the GOAT coach and first ballot hall of famer in prime Gasol. Jordan needed Pippen and GOAT coach...Lebron needs defensive wings / shooters...and stars...Bird needed McHale and depth...Magic needed Kareem and vice versa...KG needed Pierce/Allen. Cool...tell me more.

Again, you are out of your depth here...take the L

[tontoz]

Giannis has missed 15 games. In those 15 games the Bucks are averaging 113 ppg and this clown is saying they lack scoring outside of Giannis.

:oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

Giannis has missed 15 games. In those 15 games the Bucks are averaging 113 ppg and this clown is saying they lack scoring outside of Giannis.

:oldlol:

Nuggets without Jokic. Offensive rating of 106.

Bucks without Giannis. Offensive rating of 112.

Jokic just holding that team back offensively....:oldlol:

[BigShotBob]

Murray coming back from injury doesn't somehow make him better. It means he has the potential to be better.

Again, you seem out of your depth here. Jokic could easily have a team top 10 in offense and defense around him. Are you serious? Want to know how I know?

Because....wait for it...the ****ing 2019 Nuggets finished 6th on offense and 10th on defense. Jokic played the most minutes on the team.

:roll::roll:

Murray is still rounding into form like Klay was/is.

So Jokic at his peak now is a worse defender than he was 4 years ago? It couldn't have been an anomaly?

Oh wait maybe it's because they had more defensive pieces (Torey Craig, Mason Plumee, and Paul Milsap)

Make it make sense.


Dude...when you outscore the opponent by over 12 points per 100 possessions overall....you have been great overall. Doesn't matter how you do it...if you are outscoring teams by double digits with your best player over nearly 2 full seasons...you are doing something very much right when he's on the court.

Of course defense matters, but there is no perfect player...if Jokic, similar to Dirk, was as good as Duncan on defense...they'd be in talks for the best players ever.

Again, you are out of your depth here...take the L

Outscoring opponents who can easily outscore you in turn. Interesting. Again, how far will this 18th place Defensive Rating take them this year?

Strawman. If Jokic was as good of a paint defender as Kessler or Claxton the Nuggets would be borderline favorites. But with Jokic you know there's always a chance they can lose to anyone in a series due to lack of defense. Just like Luka and the Mavs. Philly has the opposite problem. They have a chance to lose to anyone because they are offensively stagnant.


Giannis has missed 15 games. In those 15 games the Bucks are averaging 113 ppg and this clown is saying they lack scoring outside of Giannis.

Maybe because they actually play in a system?

And name the teams they beat.

[FKAri]

In defense of BigShotBob, although I disagree with his premise, just because a team relies more on a player doesn't make that player better. Sometimes these plus minus stats are distorted by the fact that one guy has a more competent backup than the other. A team could also be constructed in a way to rely more on their star(often ball dominant PGs). Maybe that team has a talent cap and that's the best way to get the most out of it.

[DMAVS41]

Murray is still rounding into form like Klay was/is.

So Jokic at his peak now is a worse defender than he was 4 years ago? It couldn't have been an anomaly?

Oh wait maybe it's because they had more defensive pieces (Torey Craig, Mason Plumee, and Paul Milsap)

Make it make sense.



Outscoring opponents who can easily outscore you in turn. Interesting. Again, how far will this 18th place Defensive Rating take them this year?

Strawman. If Jokic was as good of a paint defender as Kessler or Claxton the Nuggets would be borderline favorites. But with Jokic you know there's always a chance they can lose to anyone in a series due to lack of defense. Just like Luka and the Mavs. Philly has the opposite problem. They have a chance to lose to anyone because they are offensively stagnant.



Maybe because they actually play in a system?

And name the teams they beat.

Until you realize that a team produces these results...you'll continue to come off like a complete dumbass. You literally explain it in your own response...Jokic had more a better defensive team around him back then. What is hard to grasp?

Nobody is saying team defense doesn't matter. It does. Please stop arguing with a ghost on a point nobody is disputing. We are disputing how good the help is for Jokic. You even admit it...he doesn't have great defensive help...which he needs. And, if you weren't a biased clown, you realize that this team also really struggles offensively without Jokic on the court.

You understand why normal people aren't freaking out about a Nuggets team that doesn't have a many great defenders, doesn't have a second star right now, and falls apart on offense and gets worse on defense when Jokic isn't on the court?

And, yet, they still have the best record in the conference...that doesn't make him better than Giannis or Joel...but any legit analysis acknowledges this shit man.

[tontoz]

Denver's defense ranks 11th with Jokic on the floor. How many times does this have to be repeated for your simple.mind to grasp it?

[DMAVS41]

In defense of BigShotBob, although I disagree with his premise, just because a team relies more on a player doesn't make that player better. Sometimes these plus minus stats are distorted by the fact that one guy has a more competent backup than the other. A team could also be constructed in a way to rely more on their star(often ball dominant PGs). Maybe that team has a talent cap and that's the best way to get the most out of it.

Yes. I've already mentioned that, for example, the offensive ceiling of this Nuggets team is really high with their best players on the court and that has more value (hence they have a great record) than the harm of having the worst offense in the league without Jokic on the court.

In addition, I'm not nor have I seen anyone claim that Jokic is better because of these numbers. I'm just trying to show how to have a nuanced conversation....because how bad the Nuggets have been without Jokic on the court last year has not gotten nearly enough attention...and Jokic seems to be getting a lot of hate recently.

Really tough to blame a player for how bad his team is when he's sitting on the bench or not playing.

Not just numbers either...

Nuggets without Jokic are 3-5
Sixers without Joel are 9-4
Bucks without Giannis are 9-6

I believe that is correct...something like the above list time I checked.

Pretty good evidence overall I'd say.

[SouBeachTalents]

Denver's defense ranks 11th with Jokic on the floor. How many times does this have to be repeated for your simple.mind to grasp it?
But he got outplayed by CJ McCollum in one game 4 years ago, that's what matters most.

[BarberSchool]

But he got outplayed by CJ McCollum in one game 4 years ago, that's what matters most.
LMMFAO nice.

Mavs 2nd option Jason Terry outplayed LeBron for an entire NBA Finals. And a gangly lumbering aging euro with bad ankles and knees slaughtered LeBron in crunch time by a nearly unbelievable margin ……. Does this make LeFraud unworthy of his MVP’s ?

[SouBeachTalents]

LMMFAO nice.

Mavs 2nd option Jason Terry outplayed LeBron for an entire NBA Finals. And a gangly lumbering aging euro with bad ankles and knees slaughtered LeBron in crunch time by a nearly unbelievable margin ……. Does this make LeFraud unworthy of his MVP’s ?
I was being sarcastic you fcking idiot :oldlol:

[BarberSchool]

I was being sarcastic you fcking idiot :oldlol:

Fully aware that’s why I said “nice” and wanted to keep the idea going with even more ridiculous examples that would hit the psyche of many in this thread asserting such ridiculousness

[post]

triple double and a road win against a team they just lost to

looks like joker is


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIPS4LyveJs

[BigShotBob]

Until you realize that a team produces these results...you'll continue to come off like a complete dumbass. You literally explain it in your own response...Jokic had more a better defensive team around him back then. What is hard to grasp?

Nobody is saying team defense doesn't matter. It does. Please stop arguing with a ghost on a point nobody is disputing. We are disputing how good the help is for Jokic. You even admit it...he doesn't have great defensive help...which he needs. And, if you weren't a biased clown, you realize that this team also really struggles offensively without Jokic on the court.

You understand why normal people aren't freaking out about a Nuggets team that doesn't have a many great defenders, doesn't have a second star right now, and falls apart on offense and gets worse on defense when Jokic isn't on the court?

And, yet, they still have the best record in the conference...that doesn't make him better than Giannis or Joel...but any legit analysis acknowledges this shit man.

You were the one obsessing over Offensive Effiency Rating and Points Per Posession. What happened to those stats when they lost 4 in a row? What happened to those stats against Portland in Game 7? What happened to those stats when Embiid dropped 47 points on him? And what will happen to those stats when he loses in the 2nd round (again)?

The same reason why no one is freaking out about a 76ers team that can't score outside of Harden and Embiid. Yet the Bucks are still favorites with a middle of the pack offense and a top flight defense.

Answer me why and we can have an honest conversation.

Maybe because....Giannis > Jokic?

There you said it. Jokic is the third best big behind those two. Nice talk.


Not just numbers either...

Nuggets without Jokic are 3-5
Sixers without Joel are 9-4
Bucks without Giannis are 9-6

I believe that is correct...something like the above list time I checked.

Pretty good evidence overall I'd say.

Name the teams that the Bucks beat without Giannis. Don't be an analytical fraud.



Denver's defense ranks 11th with Jokic on the floor. How many times does this have to be repeated for your simple.mind to grasp it?

So they're 11th with Jokic....which is worse than the 9th place Pelicans who haven't been healthy all year and play CJ McCollum?

Gotta love advanced stats but since you love them then Jokic at his best defensively on the floor with the Nuggets is worse than the Pelicans. Giannis anchors a top 2 defense and Embiid anchors a top 5 defense when they are both on the floor.


But he got outplayed by CJ McCollum in one game 4 years ago, that's what matters most.

How badly was he outplayed? Go look it up.


LMMFAO nice.

Mavs 2nd option Jason Terry outplayed LeBron for an entire NBA Finals. And a gangly lumbering aging euro with bad ankles and knees slaughtered LeBron in crunch time by a nearly unbelievable margin ……. Does this make LeFraud unworthy of his MVP’s ?

The hypothetical Jokic most posters here envision has never existed due to weaknesses in his own game. He's efficient, until he runs against a team with real bigs, then suddenly he's a 21 ppg scorer. He's efficient, except in a game 7 at home where he gets outplayed by CJ McCollum. He loses to the Warriors in the first round but it's okay he never had a chance anyways so that somehow makes him better than he is.

And that's it that's been his career so far.

Oh and beating Portland in the first round. Only to get swept by the Suns averaging 25 points on 47% shooting (is that good for a big man?) and 27% from 3 (is that an efficient shooting percentage?)

[tontoz]

Did this clown really bring up last year's playoffs, where Jokic averaged 31/13/6 with a 64% TS against the champs?

:facepalm

[BigShotBob]

Did this clown really bring up last year's playoffs, where Jokic averaged 31/13/6 with a 64% TS against the champs?

:facepalm

So he can average 31/13/6 against the Warriors but against the Suns he averages 25 on 47% shooting and 27% from 3? Are those good shooting splits?

Again, he isn't who you think he is.

[tontoz]

So he can average 31/13/6 against the Warriors but against the Suns he averages 25 on 47% shooting and 27% from 3? Are those good shooting splits?

Again, he isn't who you think he is.

I know exactly who he is, a two time MVP who averages 26.4/11.5/5.8 in the playoffs with a 61% TS. His only first round loss was against the champs GS without Murray and MPJ.

Just the facts, no cherry picking.

[DMAVS41]

I honestly don't understand your point. So Jokic is not allowed to have a losing streak? That is supposed to prove something to you? That stats and objective measures don't matter because a player or team might not always perform exactly as their averages indicated? I genuinely do not understand the point you are trying to make.

I think Giannis and Joel are both better than Jokic this season...again, what does that have to do with anything we have discussed? Where did I argue Jokic was better than either of them? Again, I'm genuinely confused.

I simply, in addition to posting on/off...showed the records of the teams in question without their star player. I think the evidence over the last nearly 2 full seasons now shows that the Nuggets really struggle without Jokic on the court in a way the current Bucks and Sixers do not when their stars are off the court. Like, is that even disputable?

Yes, Giannis and Joel are considerably better defensive players and anchor much better defenses than Jokic. Giannis does have quite a bit better defensive help, but of course that doesn't change that Giannis is a much better defender. Again, what is the point here? Has anyone ever compared Jokic favorably to Giannis or Joel on defense in this thread? Who are you responding to?

Just like Jokic, when he's on the court, anchors a significantly better offense than either Giannis or Joel are able to produce with their teams.

I ask, yet again, why is it ok for Joel to never get out the 2nd round, but you seem to hammer Jokic really hard in the playoffs even though he's had more success and has as good or better numbers. Please respond.

[DMAVS41]

I was the main one telling people that overhype KG and his defense how Dirk slaughtered him in 02 in the playoffs.

I missed this earlier. So, you seem open to Dirk being a better or more valuable player than KG....or at the very least even with him. Why are you not open to Jokic being on the level of better defensive players than him? Is it that you think Dirk was significantly better than Jokic is?

What is the difference?

[fourkicks44]

I honestly don't understand your point. So Jokic is not allowed to have a losing streak? That is supposed to prove something to you? That stats and objective measures don't matter because a player or team might not always perform exactly as their averages indicated? I genuinely do not understand the point you are trying to make.

I think Giannis and Joel are both better than Jokic this season...again, what does that have to do with anything we have discussed? Where did I argue Jokic was better than either of them? Again, I'm genuinely confused.

I simply, in addition to posting on/off...showed the records of the teams in question without their star player. I think the evidence over the last nearly 2 full seasons now shows that the Nuggets really struggle without Jokic on the court in a way the current Bucks and Sixers do not when their stars are off the court. Like, is that even disputable?

Yes, Giannis and Joel are considerably better defensive players and anchor much better defenses than Jokic. Giannis does have quite a bit better defensive help, but of course that doesn't change that Giannis is a much better defender. Again, what is the point here? Has anyone ever compared Jokic favorably to Giannis or Joel on defense in this thread? Who are you responding to?

Just like Jokic, when he's on the court, anchors a significantly better offense than either Giannis or Joel are able to produce with their teams.

I ask, yet again, why is it ok for Joel to never get out the 2nd round, but you seem to hammer Jokic really hard in the playoffs even though he's had more success and has as good or better numbers. Please respond.

I don't agree with what BigShotBob is arguing in this thread but as far back as I can remember he has always been brutally critical of Joel. He has never given him a pass for not getting out of the 2nd round.

And let's also be serious, no matter what people say about Jokers playoff disappointments, he is never demonised the way Joel is for his lack of playoff success right here, on the wider social media landscape or in the general media.

Maybe Bob is just trying to highlight the fact that for some reason Joel is held to higher standard of expectation for playoff success than Joker.

Seems it is always made to be Joel's fault his team loses in the playoffs, he has the reputation as the playoff choker.

Joker always gets a pass because his team is apparently always ass, it never his fault because advance stats always prove his team sucks without him more than any other player in the league. Which also happens to be his MO and the main reason why he is the two time MVP

[DMAVS41]

I don't agree with what BigShotBob is arguing in this thread but as far back as I can remember he has always been brutally critical of Joel. He has never given him a pass for not getting out of the 2nd round.

And let's also be serious, no matter what people say about Jokers playoff disappointments, he is never demonised the way Joel is for his lack of playoff success right here, on the wider social media landscape or in the general media.

Maybe Bob is just trying to highlight the fact that for some reason Joel is held to higher standard of expectation for playoff success than Joker.

Seems it is always made to be Joel's fault his team loses in the playoffs, he has the reputation as the playoff choker.

Joker always gets a pass because his team is apparently always ass, it never his fault because advance stats always prove his team sucks without him more than any other player in the league. Which also happens to be his MO and the main reason why he is the two time MVP

I'm not up to date on which player gets the most hate, but I was just curious what his opinion was because he keeps going on and on about Jokic in the playoffs.

I think with Jokic, although I do agree a little with what you say, is that his team in 21 actually wasn't very good without Murray...and then last year, not only was he missing MPJ and Murray, but they lost to the champs.

But Jokic could easily be criticized for his play in the Suns series...I don't think it was a big deal, but he did not play great at all.

[BigShotBob]

I know exactly who he is, a two time MVP who averages 26.4/11.5/5.8 in the playoffs with a 61% TS. His only first round loss was against the champs GS without Murray and MPJ.

Just the facts, no cherry picking.

What do those list of accolades and stats tell you about him in combination with the eye test? That he deserves to win 3 in a row? Voter fatigue stopped Giannis from winning 3 plus the playoff narrative was used against him. But for some reason it can't/shouldn't be used against Jokic.

People pretty much got tired of Giannis dominating, average 30/11/5 and playing DPOY level defense. They literally wanted to move on to the next sensation.


stats and objective measures don't matter because a player or team might not always perform exactly as their averages indicated? I genuinely do not understand the point you are trying to make.

I think Giannis and Joel are both better than Jokic this season...again, what does that have to do with anything we have discussed? Where did I argue Jokic was better than either of them? Again, I'm genuinely confused.

I simply, in addition to posting on/off...showed the records of the teams in question without their star player. I think the evidence over the last nearly 2 full seasons now shows that the Nuggets really struggle without Jokic on the court in a way the current Bucks and Sixers do not when their stars are off the court. Like, is that even disputable?

Yes, Giannis and Joel are considerably better defensive players and anchor much better defenses than Jokic. Giannis does have quite a bit better defensive help, but of course that doesn't change that Giannis is a much better defender. Again, what is the point here? Has anyone ever compared Jokic favorably to Giannis or Joel on defense in this thread? Who are you responding to?

Just like Jokic, when he's on the court, anchors a significantly better offense than either Giannis or Joel are able to produce with their teams.

I ask, yet again, why is it ok for Joel to never get out the 2nd round, but you seem to hammer Jokic really hard in the playoffs even though he's had more success and has as good or better numbers. Please respond.

It's not the whole story. Stats are pretty, until they aren't. Then suddenly it's circumstantial.

So Jokic is an MVP level above Giannis and 2-3 above Embiid? Embiid didn't win it because of missed games one year and didn't win it last year because of injuries too. But Embiid was right there with Jokic and is an overall better player.

If you can show me a stretch of how the Nuggets play when Jokic sits with a fully healthy Murray, MPJ, and Gordon, then sure. But I know that will be a tall task because Murray is still getting his groove back, MPJ is finally as healthy as he's ever been, and Gordon is finally settling into the Nugget's offense.

The evidence this year shows that the Nuggets have players who average more points than Giannis's complimentary players too though.

I'm speaking on Jokic, Giannis, and Embiid because they are big men contemporaries. Those are fair comparisons because they all have similar burdens. They rebound, defend the paint, and score. Jokic is a better passer than both but that's not enough.

I'm not a fan of Embiid. Not sure why you think I am. But Jokic is getting passes that Embiid has never gotten. I didn't give Giannis a pass either and said he'd never win. He did win in spite of my prediction, same with Dirk. Though Giannis's circumstances were highly favorable but a ring is a ring.


I missed this earlier. So, you seem open to Dirk being a better or more valuable player than KG....or at the very least even with him. Why are you not open to Jokic being on the level of better defensive players than him? Is it that you think Dirk was significantly better than Jokic is?

What is the difference?

That's because the hypothetical KG player that people think existed (all-world defense with great offense and playmaking ability) never existed. KG was an inefficient face-up big who would guard multiple positions but when he faced a big of his caliber or better, he was at their mercy. For all of KG's "legendary defense" Dirk made mince meat out of him.

So yes I'm higher on Dirk than KG, but Dirk had other issues that held him back for a time.


I don't agree with what BigShotBob is arguing in this thread but as far back as I can remember he has always been brutally critical of Joel. He has never given him a pass for not getting out of the 2nd round.

And let's also be serious, no matter what people say about Jokers playoff disappointments, he is never demonised the way Joel is for his lack of playoff success right here, on the wider social media landscape or in the general media.

Maybe Bob is just trying to highlight the fact that for some reason Joel is held to higher standard of expectation for playoff success than Joker.

Seems it is always made to be Joel's fault his team loses in the playoffs, he has the reputation as the playoff choker.

Joker always gets a pass because his team is apparently always ass, it never his fault because advance stats always prove his team sucks without him more than any other player in the league. Which also happens to be his MO and the main reason why he is the two time MVP

Thank you.

I've been brutal on Embiid, Giannis, and now Jokic. They each had holes in their game that needed to be talked about and not swept under the rug. Embiid took too many 3's, Giannis couldn't score outside of 5ft, and Jokic can't stop anyone from scoring on him. Embiid has dominated from free throw line down, Giannis has expanded his game and has far more moves than he's ever had, but here we are with Jokic winning back-to-back MVPs while being the same mediocre defender he's always been.

Something isn't adding up to me.


I'm not up to date on which player gets the most hate, but I was just curious what his opinion was because he keeps going on and on about Jokic in the playoffs.

I think with Jokic, although I do agree a little with what you say, is that his team in 21 actually wasn't very good without Murray...and then last year, not only was he missing MPJ and Murray, but they lost to the champs.

But Jokic could easily be criticized for his play in the Suns series...I don't think it was a big deal, but he did not play great at all.

Yet if I never brought up how truly pedestrian he was no one here would talk about it.

[tontoz]

I really don't care who wins the MVP this year. If Giannis or Embiid win it i wouldn't care, although i would prefer if Embiid won it.

Last night the Bucks bench made 8 3s. Why don't you find the last time the Nuggets bench made 8 3s? I looked back to Feb 1 and couldn't find any. I did find several games where they made only 1 and found one ofer.

Brook Lopez outscored the Raptors in the 4th quarter.

[3ba11]

I disagreed with Nash selections but Jokic statistical dominance is hard to argue.


Cowherd made a great point the other day - he said "who gives a crap if your center can get 10 assists per game.. If I'm a GM, that isn't necessarily what I'm seeking in a center"... (paraphrased)

This is true until proven otherwise imo.. Jokic must prove that this brand of ball can win, which is why his stats matter little.. The best NBA players will always put up stats, but methodology matters.. It's possible that when a team makes their center the point man, it doesn't work without exorbitant talent (obviously any methodology can win once in a while if you put enough talent around him).

Ultimately, if he can't prove that his stats can win, then his player-type is inferior to other player-types.

Out of the guys that achieved top 20 single season PER's (all-time), only Jokic and Embiid haven't won titles.. But imo, it's hard to imagine that a guy who gets a 32 PER with under 5 minutes of hold-time doesn't infact promote the best chemistry and strategic capacity (coaching).

I predict the following from the West.. The Warriors are done unless Wiggins returns in a big way - the Warriors actually lost their 3 best defenders from last year (Payton, Otto, Wiggins)... Other teams like Dallas & Sacramento lack great chemistry or experience, respectively, so Denver has the most equity to win the West imo.. Denver is followed by Memphis and Clippers.. Lakers should have good equity but their chemistry has been bad all year - it's hard to see them figuring it out.. Phoenix has no chance imo (injured in layup line?.. gtfo.. I hope I'm dead wrong on this)..

If I'm wrong on Denver, it will help confirm that a lesser-defensive center with great offense (Jokic, Walton, Sabonis) < good defensive centers with great offense like Wilt, Kareem, Shaq... This makes me think Jokic will fail again but the issue is that none of the Western contenders have defensive bonafides except maybe the clips & griz

[SouBeachTalents]

Cowherd made a great point the other day - he said "who gives a crap if your center can get 10 assists per game.. If I'm a GM, that isn't necessarily what I'm seeking in a center"... (paraphrased)

This is true until proven otherwise imo.. Jokic must prove that this brand of ball can win, which is why his stats matter little.. The best NBA players will always put up stats, but methodology matters.. It's possible that when a team makes their center the point man, it doesn't work without exorbitant talent (obviously any methodology can win once in a while if you put enough talent around him).

Ultimately, if he can't prove that his stats can win, then his player-type is inferior to other player-types.

Out of the guys that achieved top 20 single season PER's (all-time), only Jokic and Embiid haven't won titles.. But imo, it's hard to imagine that a guy who gets a 32 PER with under 5 minutes of hold-time doesn't infact promote the best chemistry and strategic capacity (coaching).

I predict the following from the West.. The Warriors are done unless Wiggins returns in a big way - the Warriors actually lost their 3 best defenders from last year (Payton, Otto, Wiggins)... Other teams like Dallas & Sacramento lack great chemistry or experience, respectively, so Denver has the most equity to win the West imo.. Denver is followed by Memphis and Clippers.. Lakers should have good equity but their chemistry has been bad all year - it's hard to see them figuring it out.. Phoenix has no chance imo (injured in layup line?.. gtfo.. I hope I'm dead wrong on this)..

If I'm wrong on Denver, it will help confirm that a lesser-defensive center with great offense (Jokic, Walton, Sabonis) < good defensive centers with great offense like Wilt, Kareem, Shaq... This makes me think Jokic will fail again but the issue is that none of the Western contenders have defensive bonafides except maybe the clips & griz
This dude just claimed Bill Walton wasn’t a good defensive center :oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

I'll try to get to the core issues as much as possible because you are quoting me and then responding to things I never said or argued.

1. I never said Jokic is levels above Giannis or Joel...I've simply said he was a reasonable choice for MVP the last couple years and is an all-time great player.

2. You can't do that with the supporting cast. You are giving them credit for being healthy when they haven't been. Yes, I agree...at least to some extent, that a fully healthy Nuggets team should have higher expectations. But, as you have now stated, they haven't been healthy...yet you keep talking about the supporting cast in theory and not in practice. That doesn't make sense.

3. The evidence shows this year that the Nuggets without Jokic on the court have been terrible...much worse than the Bucks and Sixers without their stars. I agree that the Nuggets have the highest ceiling on offense when they have their star vs the other two teams, but denying the reality of what the Nuggets have done without Jokic this year in terms of performance and record is silly. Why deny reality?

4. Jokic is more than just a better passer...he's clearly a better and more valuable offensive player in my opinion. He's so good on offense that, despite his defensive limitations you rightly point out, he can still be compared to elite two-way players like Giannis and Joel.

5. Jokic, if he has, has gotten passes because he's made it to a conference finals and has had decimated teams the last couple years in the playoffs so that has essentially made it unfair to hammer him too much as nobody is doing anything of note with the kind of help he's gotten in the playoffs. Doesn't make him better or worse or anything...his help just has been really bad because of injuries as of late in the playoffs.

6. Disagree about KG. He is one of the best two-way players ever and definitely on the short list of best defenders ever. I invite you to read more from an analytical analysis. I do not agree with how high he is ranked here, but there is a lot of data to support his greatness. I think people like you miss greatness because of circumstances too often.

https://thinkingbasketball.net/2018/03/19/backpicks-goat-8-kevin-garnett/

7. You should reflect on why you keep saying guys like Dirk or Giannis won't ever win. Something is missing from your ability to analyze greatness in basketball players if you are concluding guys like that aren't good enough to win.

8. Whether someone talks about something doesn't make it true or false. In this case...nobody cares much about Jokic not playing well against the Suns because they had absolutely no chance to win that series given his help. Fair to say he didn't play well...completely unfair to expect the Nuggets to win that series. Hence, nobody cares much...

[1987_Lakers]

Cowherd made a great point the other day - he said "who gives a crap if your center can get 10 assists per game.. If I'm a GM, that isn't necessarily what I'm seeking in a center"... (paraphrased)

This is true until proven otherwise imo.. Jokic must prove that this brand of ball can win, which is why his stats matter little.. The best NBA players will always put up stats, but methodology matters.. It's possible that when a team makes their center the point man, it doesn't work without exorbitant talent (obviously any methodology can win once in a while if you put enough talent around him).

Ultimately, if he can't prove that his stats can win, then his player-type is inferior to other player-types.

Out of the guys that achieved top 20 single season PER's (all-time), only Jokic and Embiid haven't won titles.. But imo, it's hard to imagine that a guy who gets a 32 PER with under 5 minutes of hold-time doesn't infact promote the best chemistry and strategic capacity (coaching).

I predict the following from the West.. The Warriors are done unless Wiggins returns in a big way - the Warriors actually lost their 3 best defenders from last year (Payton, Otto, Wiggins)... Other teams like Dallas & Sacramento lack great chemistry or experience, respectively, so Denver has the most equity to win the West imo.. Denver is followed by Memphis and Clippers.. Lakers should have good equity but their chemistry has been bad all year - it's hard to see them figuring it out.. Phoenix has no chance imo (injured in layup line?.. gtfo.. I hope I'm dead wrong on this)..

If I'm wrong on Denver, it will help confirm that a lesser-defensive center with great offense (Jokic, Walton, Sabonis) < good defensive centers with great offense like Wilt, Kareem, Shaq... This makes me think Jokic will fail again but the issue is that none of the Western contenders have defensive bonafides except maybe the clips & griz

What in the world are you talking about? Peak Walton was a better defensive center than Kareem & Shaq. His defense was Russell level.

[3ba11]

What in the world are you talking about? Peak Walton was a better defensive center than Kareem & Shaq. His defense was Russell level.


Is that all you disagree with in the post?

The idea is that Jokic's brand of ball (10 apg center) will be confirmed as not winning basketball if he can't win title

Btw, last year the Warriors put money in the bank all year with a great regular season, so they were perceived as "back" and a juggernaut heading into the playoffs.. This year is the opposite - they can't win on the road and it's due to defense but also psychology - it takes mental strength to overcome negative energy on the road and it's possible that the Draymond knockout artist on Poole has the team self-conscious on the road

[tontoz]

Is that all you disagree with in the post?

The idea is that Jokic's brand of ball (10 apg center) will be confirmed as not winning basketball if he can't win title


So if not winning a title confirms that he doesn't play winning basketball, then does winning a title confirm that he does play winning basketball?

If that is the case what does winning 4 titles with 3 different teams mean?

[SouBeachTalents]

What in the world are you talking about? Peak Walton was a better defensive center than Kareem & Shaq. His defense was Russell level.
Is that all you disagree with in the post?

The idea is that Jokic's brand of ball (10 apg center) will be confirmed as not winning basketball if he can't win title

Btw, last year the Warriors put money in the bank all year with a great regular season, so they were perceived as "back" and a juggernaut heading into the playoffs.. This year is the opposite - they can't win on the road and it's due to defense but also psychology - it takes mental strength to overcome negative energy on the road and it's possible that the Draymond knockout artist on Poole has the team self-conscious on the road

[post]

Asked about Jokić’s critics, Nuggets coach Michael Malone recently said, “Maybe they’re just tired of this player, this nonathletic player from Sombor, Serbia, who continues to kick everybody’s ass.”

https://i.ibb.co/g6GvjL9/ezgif-4-99810fcd13.gif

[3ba11]

So if not winning a title confirms that he doesn't play winning basketball, then does winning a title confirm that he does play winning basketball?

If that is the case what does winning 4 titles with 3 different teams mean?


If Jokic fails to win the conference with homecourt, this will confirm that his brand can't win... If he needs to take the top 3 first options in the conference and put them on 1 team to win, this won't qualify as his brand being good enough to win.. It will confirm that his brand couldn't win and needed to stack the deck.

Ultimately, going 1/4 with AD is bad... 1/4 with Love is bad... 1/4 with Wade is bad (except the Allen miracle)... Lebron is simply a 1/4 guy even with the best hand-picked casts, so 20 years of longevity confirms that he isn't capable of a dynasty, 3-peat or 6 chips with any lineup, aka objectively inferior to MJ and others.

[SouBeachTalents]

If Jokic fails to win the conference with homecourt, this will confirm that his brand can't win... If he needs to take the top 3 first options in the conference and put them on 1 team to win, this won't qualify as his brand being good enough to win.. It will confirm that his brand couldn't win and needed to stack the deck.

Ultimately, going 1/4 with AD is bad... 1/4 with Love is bad... 1/4 with Wade is bad (except the Allen miracle)... Lebron is simply a 1/4 guy even with the best hand-picked casts, so 20 years of longevity confirms that he isn't capable of a dynasty, 3-peat or 6 chips with any lineup, aka objectively inferior to MJ and others.
AD's missed literally half the games the last 3 seasons, including half the Phoenix series in 2021. While Love missed nearly the entire 2015 playoffs, and nobody on earth is beating the 2018 Warriors with Kevin Love as 2nd option.

But you knew all this already.

[tontoz]

If Jokic fails to win the conference with homecourt, this will confirm that his brand can't win... If he needs to take the top 3 first options in the conference and put them on 1 team to win, this won't qualify as his brand being good enough to win.. It will confirm that his brand couldn't win and needed to stack the deck.

Ultimately, going 1/4 with AD is bad... 1/4 with Love is bad... 1/4 with Wade is bad (except the Allen miracle)... Lebron is simply a 1/4 guy even with the best hand-picked casts, so 20 years of longevity confirms that he isn't capable of a dynasty, 3-peat or 6 chips with any lineup, aka objectively inferior to MJ and others.


First of all this is nonsense. I remember the 67 win first seed Mavs losing in the first round to GS. Then a few years later they won the title.

Secondly there isn't a large sample size of elite playmaking centers in league history. Jokic is 1 of 1. If one guy fails to win a title that wouldn't mean that his "brand of ball" cant win. If there were multiple guys like Jokic who failed to win a title then that would be a different story.

When exactly have the Nuggets underachieved in the playoffs? When did they lose a series where they were favored? It seems like people are pretending that they have underachieved in the playoffs which hasn't been the case.

[3ba11]

First of all this is nonsense. I remember the 67 win first seed Mavs losing in the first round to GS. Then a few years later they won the title.

Secondly there isn't a large sample size of elite playmaking centers in league history. Jokic is 1 of 1. If one guy fails to win a title that wouldn't mean that his "brand of ball" cant win. If there were multiple guys like Jokic who failed to win a title then that would be a different story.

When exactly have the Nuggets underachieved in the playoffs? When did they lose a series where they were favored? It seems like people are pretending that they have underachieved in the playoffs which hasn't been the case.


I agree that Jokic might figure it out like Dirk did, but my post was saying if he DOESN'T ever figure it out and win..

If he eventually has to form a super-team, then he didn't really figure out championship chemistry or strategy and was forced to resort to talent-based winning (all-star team strategy)..

And I also agree that Jokic is 1 of 1.. That's why my post said that I think he WILL win the West - my post said that it's hard to imagine a guy that gets a 32 PER in less than 5 minutes of hold-time doesn't infact yield the best chemistry and strategic capacity (coaching)..

So I think he SHOULD win, but I could be wrong.. The reality is that the best players take advantage of spacing and hands-off defense MORE than lesser players can, so guys like Bird or MJ would have higher PER's in today's game (greater advantage over their peers today than they had in 80's/90's).. So there's a chance that a smart player with good skill like Jokic has simply found a way to get great stats in the easy format... but it's empty stats and fool's gold that can't win in playoffs................ We'll see....

I disagree with your 3rd point about what loss should the Nuggets have won - Jamal Murray was dominant in the 2020 Playoffs (27/5/7 on 63 TS), while the Jokic caused loss by drastically underperforming against the Lakers.. They would've won in 2020 if Jokic hadn't underperformed and a loss this year would likely be from the same thing - Jokic underperforming

[tontoz]

The Lakers were favored over the Nuggets in the bubble.

Jokic averaged 22 with a 61.6% TS in the series. That isnt underperforming for a guy who averaged 20 ppg with a 60% TS during the season. You are just making stuff up.

[3ba11]

The Lakers were favored over the Nuggets in the bubble.

Jokic averaged 22 with a 61.6% TS in the series. That isnt underperforming for a guy who averaged 20 ppg with a 60% TS during the season. You are just making stuff up.


Jamal Murray did what Jokic was supposed to do - be the best player on his team

So Jokic underperformed by not being the best player - regular season stats are irrelevant when teammates are stepping it up and the best player isn't

I anticipate the Nuggets losing again this year if Jokic isn't the best player on his team (by far)

[SouBeachTalents]

The Lakers were favored over the Nuggets in the bubble.

Jokic averaged 22 with a 61.6% TS in the series. That isnt underperforming for a guy who averaged 20 ppg with a 60% TS during the season. You are just making stuff up.
3ball making stuff up? He'd never :lol

[tontoz]

Jamal Murray did what Jokic was supposed to do - be the best player on his team

So Jokic underperformed by not being the best player - regular season stats are irrelevant when teammates are stepping it up and the best player isn't

I anticipate the Nuggets losing again this year if Jokic isn't the best player on his team (by far)


Nonsense. Just because Murray went off doesn't mean Jokic underperformed. That makes no sense. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Jokic wasn't a MVP caliber player then. He was fat and not as aggressive on offense as he is now.

[DMAVS41]

I agree that Jokic might figure it out like Dirk did, but my post was saying if he DOESN'T ever figure it out and win..

If he eventually has to form a super-team, then he didn't really figure out championship chemistry or strategy and was forced to resort to talent-based winning (all-star team strategy)..



Why is it always guys that aren't playing with great help that have to "figure it out"? Nobody in the current league is winning with what the Nuggets gave Jokic the last two seasons. Nobody. It isn't even a question.

Like I said before...it is all the same shit. It is Dirk being expected to win with Jason Terry and Josh Howard and an objectively poor coach...when almost all other titles are won with better help and much better coaching.

Does it really not ever make you guys think that the guys that supposedly "can't win" end up "figuring it out" when they get better teams around them?

Same shit with KG...yea, he just "figured it out" finally in 08...that was what was holding back those Wolves teams...KG not being able to figure it out.

[3ba11]

Why is it always guys that aren't playing with great help that have to "figure it out"? Nobody in the current league is winning with what the Nuggets gave Jokic the last two seasons. Nobody. It isn't even a question.

Like I said before...it is all the same shit. It is Dirk being expected to win with Jason Terry and Josh Howard and an objectively poor coach...when almost all other titles are won with better help and much better coaching.

Does it really not ever make you guys think that the guys that supposedly "can't win" end up "figuring it out" when they get better teams around them?

Same shit with KG...yea, he just "figured it out" finally in 08...that was what was holding back those Wolves teams...KG not being able to figure it out.


Murray averaged 27/5/7 on 63 TS like the 2020 Playoffs - there's no excuse for Jokic not winning with that if he wants to be compared to Jordan, Kobe, Curry or even Dirk - they never had that kind of help from a sidekick.. I would hope that Jokic is good enough this year to win with that - hopefully he's "figured it out"...

Ultimately, time will tell if a 10 APG center is a championship brand of ball.. If he keeps failing to win and is forced to form super-teams (talent-based winning), then we'll have another example of high assists in the frontcourt needing super-teams (Lebron is the other high-assist frontcourt player)

[post]

Jokic, in Gordon’s mind, is barreling toward a three-peat.

“I don’t even think it’s really that close,” Gordon said.

Malcolm Brogdon on MVP race: "I think Joker is probably No. 1 right now."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBifbq7MNJI

[Micku]

Murray averaged 27/5/7 on 63 TS like the 2020 Playoffs - there's no excuse for Jokic not winning with that if he wants to be compared to Jordan, Kobe, Curry or even Dirk - they never had that kind of help from a sidekick.. I would hope that Jokic is good enough this year to win with that - hopefully he's "figured it out"...

Ultimately, time will tell if a 10 APG center is a championship brand of ball.. If he keeps failing to win and is forced to form super-teams (talent-based winning), then we'll have another example of high assists in the frontcourt needing super-teams (Lebron is the other high-assist frontcourt player)

Jokic wasn't as good back then. I felt that they overachieved in 2020, especially when they beat the Clips. Murray was on fire too. Jokic put up better numbers than he did in the regular season too. But he still wasn't consider better than AD imo.

But since 2020, he took his game to another lvl. It's amazing how well he has been playing for since the 2020 season. But time will time to see if he could perform as well in the playoffs and how far Denver can go since they are now healthy. I think so far, he didn't disappoint.

But the West is crazy this year. Lots of teams can get upset.

[DMAVS41]

Murray averaged 27/5/7 on 63 TS like the 2020 Playoffs - there's no excuse for Jokic not winning with that if he wants to be compared to Jordan, Kobe, Curry or even Dirk - they never had that kind of help from a sidekick.. I would hope that Jokic is good enough this year to win with that - hopefully he's "figured it out"...

Ultimately, time will tell if a 10 APG center is a championship brand of ball.. If he keeps failing to win and is forced to form super-teams (talent-based winning), then we'll have another example of high assists in the frontcourt needing super-teams (Lebron is the other high-assist frontcourt player)

If you took the time to actually read my post, you'd see I said the last two seasons.

I do think that 20 Nuggets team was good, but I certainly don't think it was on par with most teams that won titles. Jokic wasn't as good as he's become at the time and they were rightfully underdogs to the Lakers as well.

It isn't like Jokc played poorly either...he played quite well...just played against a better team with two better players at the time imo.

[post]

imagine jokic wins mvp and caruso wins dpoy

https://i.ibb.co/bLrkxXH/space-kitten.gif

[post]

imagine denver's defense if they drafted herbert jones instead of cancer hyland and traded for caruso

https://i.ibb.co/gZ3t1F0/55537b7ad19df181a9b7e509ff1131f2.gif

[post]

casket time for some of these denver dudes

not on herb and carushow will take joker to the promised land

https://i.ibb.co/1XkN8WP/giphy.gif

[fourkicks44]

imagine denver's defense if they drafted herbert jones instead of cancer hyland and traded for caruso

https://i.ibb.co/gZ3t1F0/55537b7ad19df181a9b7e509ff1131f2.gif

I told you once before, this is your last warning.... Don't f"ck with Delaware.

Your boys have been ass since they traded him away for peanuts. Coincidence?

I think not.

https://youtu.be/IyhJ69mD7xI

[post]

I told you once before, this is your last warning.... Don't f"ck with Delaware.

Your boys have been ass since they traded him away for peanuts. Coincidence?

I think not.

https://youtu.be/IyhJ69mD7xI

you can take bone cancer out of denver but you can't take the cancer out of bones

said he wanted a bigger role

coach told him to play an ounce of d or stfu

he cried so they decided to get reggie flotsam jackson and thomas jetsam bryant

https://i.ibb.co/fk8V7WR/funny-animals-dog.gif

[fourkicks44]

Just remember one thing, what Bones did in Philly last year, got the voters to turn their ass on Joel. Joker owes some of that second MVP to him.

The grass is greener.

C'est la vie.

https://youtu.be/2lqwbeULlzc

[post]

joker owes bones a shit sandwich for almost sabotaging the team

at least that farm boy from kansas braun is doing something

which ain't much

but beggars can't be choosers

https://i.ibb.co/nMcN8R1/tumblr-neiwa9-N9yy1qb2u78o1-400.gif

[post]

caldwell pope has been an upgrade over barton

but brown has been a downgrade from morris

if you throw enough shit at the wall some of it will stick

[post]

it's possible the injuries to murray and porter have crippled them to playing at the overpaid level they are now forever

gordon is acceptable and is playing above his paycheck

one can only pray to the flying spaghetti monster it lasts

[post]

jokic says he doesn't even think about mvp anymore

he's turned off by the nastiness

george karl's most recent comments

"i love embiid as a player i think he might be the most talented big guy to ever play the game the abilities embiid has is unbelievable embiid is wonderful but he's not the best"

media headlines tomorrow

"karl tears embiid a new asshole"

[DMAVS41]

it's possible the injuries to murray and porter have crippled them to playing at the overpaid level they are now forever

gordon is acceptable and is playing above his paycheck

one can only pray to the flying spaghetti monster it lasts

Updated on/off

Team with star on court (points per 100)

Jokic +12.6
Joel +9.9
Giannis +7.7


Team without star on court (points per 100)

Nuggets -11.5
Sixers -.5
Bucks +1


Again, this does not mean Jokic is better and doesn't even mean these numbers perfectly represent the help. However, what I think it is fair to say...is that Jokic getting this team to first in the West when the Nuggets just massively fall apart without him on the court...is insanely impressive.

We saw a version of this last night with Joel against the Warriors. He was amazing and dominant...and the Sixers were +13 in his minutes...and they got destroyed when he was off the court.

It's just a reality that wins are harder to come by in the regular season when a team falls off so much without their star on the court.

I hope Joel wins MVP...I think he will and he deserves it, but the ignoring of just how crazy impressive it is for Jokic to have this team at 49-24 so far is pretty bad.

[Im Still Ballin]

I'm still strong on Nikola for MVP. All the evidence points to him adding the most wins in the league. Here's my argument:

- Superior team performance (with him, without him)
- Stronger play-by-play data
- Greater adjusted, regularized adjusted, and one-number metrics

Any argument towards this being more valuable than that is just personal preference and therefore bias. I'm hard-pressed to have confidence in any of these arguments if they're not supported by data. Otherwise, it's simply just subjective opinion.

Nikola Jokic W/L: 46-19
Joel Embiid W/L: 40-20

I haven't adjusted for strength of schedule or injuries, but I'd imagine things would remain in Nikola's favor.

Also, we have to consider how their respective teams have played without them. This signal helps us understand a player's value and overall net impact.

Nuggets without Jokic: 3-5
Sixers without Embiid: 9-4

Once again, these aren't adjusted for the strength of schedule or injuries. Even if they were, they'd probably still remain in Jokic's favor.

Jokic On/Off: +24.1
Embiid On/Off: +10.4

Nikola is putting up KG 2004, LeBron 2009, and Steph 2016 on/off numbers. I don't have the adjusted numbers/regularized adjusted numbers, but they're most definitely in Nikola's favor.

Several of the one-number metrics - which include a statistical plus minus calculation and use player tracking data - have Jokic #1. He's also accrued the most win shares/wins added in many of these models. So he's not just winning the rate but also the totals.

[DMAVS41]

I'm still strong on Nikola for MVP. All the evidence points to him adding the most wins in the league. Here's my argument:

- Superior team performance (with him, without him)
- Stronger play-by-play data
- Greater adjusted, regularized adjusted, and one-number metrics

Any argument towards this being more valuable than that is just personal preference and therefore bias. I'm hard-pressed to have confidence in any of these arguments if they're not supported by data. Otherwise, it's simply just subjective opinion.

Nikola Jokic W/L: 46-19
Joel Embiid W/L: 40-20

I haven't adjusted for strength of schedule or injuries, but I'd imagine things would remain in Nikola's favor.

Also, we have to consider how their respective teams have played without them. This signal helps us understand a player's value and overall net impact.

Nuggets without Jokic: 3-5
Sixers without Embiid: 9-4

Once again, these aren't adjusted for the strength of schedule or injuries. Even if they were, they'd probably still remain in Jokic's favor.

Jokic On/Off: +24.1
Embiid On/Off: +10.4

Nikola is putting up KG 2004, LeBron 2009, and Steph 2016 on/off numbers. I don't have the adjusted numbers/regularized adjusted numbers, but they're most definitely in Nikola's favor.

Several of the one-number metrics - which include a statistical plus minus calculation and use player tracking data - have Jokic #1. He's also accrued the most win shares/wins added in many of these models. So he's not just winning the rate but also the totals.

Definitely a strong case for Jokic even after the recent slump the Nuggets had.

Obviously there is going to be some case of voter fatigue and that combined with how great Joel has been...makes me think he is quite likely to get it.

Tonight and Monday will tell us if he still has a chance. Bucks tonight and Sixers on Monday. If Jokic gets two wins and looks like the best player on the court, the race will likely be too close to call.

[DMAVS41]

31/6/11 in a win against Giannis.

Sixers lost tonight.

Jokic vs Joel on Monday.

If Jokic plays great and the Nuggets win...he's right back in the hunt.

[1_BAD_TIGER]

31/6/11 in a win against Giannis.

Sixers lost tonight.

Jokic vs Joel on Monday.

If Jokic plays great and the Nuggets win...he's right back in the hunt.

And we all know Jokic will play great, it's what he does. Joker is not in the hunt, he's leading the MVP race.

[post]

jokic was running away with it

this is very upsetting to some people

so they tried to f him six ways to sunday

but it appears the hunted has become the hunter once again

[DMAVS41]

And we all know Jokic will play great, it's what he does. Joker is not in the hunt, he's leading the MVP race.

Joel is currently the favorite to win MVP.

If the Sixers win tomorrow, in my opinion, it's basically a lock for Joel unless he doesn't play or something.