Theres actually no argument against Jokic being as good as any player ever

[FultzNationRISE]

Of course there is no singular objective “GOAT” (Besides Lebron). It’s just a talk show topic that fans see on TV and naturally take seriously and think is real and parrot the idea like there really is a true consecutive hierarchy that objectively goes from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 etc and they think they can prove it by reciting things like “he has x rings!” or “he made 11 all stars and a dpoy!”

Fact is “GOAT” isnt a real thing (the only one with an argument is Lebron). Player A could be better than player B in one situation, player B better than C in another, and C better than A in another. Everyone plays under different circumstances, theres no measurement that can prove one guy is “greater” than everyone else.

But the reality is Jokic is DWARFING his peers in what is by far the most globally competitive, highly trained talent pool ever. And he does it in both the irrelevant season and the post season. He’s in the same class of “there is no argument for anyone else in his own time” that Lebron and MJ were.

If youre honest and intelligent - and lets face it that isnt a lot of you - you dont need some arbitrary criterion that you just made up in your head to justify keeping things from changing. “Nah uh, not until he wins, uhh… this many!” *holds hands apart like a babbling toddler*

Theres nothing basketball wise you can say puts anyone else ahead of him. Doesnt mean hes as good at every facet as every player but in terms of the totality. Nobody ever has a game that is clearly above Jokic. Even his defensive metrics in last yearÂ’s playoffs were on par with Giannis’. Part of that was a great team strategy in terms of how to shade him, rather than him being a dominant rim protector, but if its not an exploitable weakness who cares.

So please, if you hear people start to talk about him being as good as anyone ever, dont be a dumb reactionary robot and give pleb reasons based on dumb things you heard on first take about “not until he wins ____.” Im just letting you know now. If you say such things, youre not gonna be seen as very smart. Youre gonna be seen as a frog who cant understand things on his own and repeats whatever TV Man says.

Thank you.

[Im Still Ballin]

Don't forget to work the shaft.

[ShawkFactory]

He’s certainly in that elite class historically. Over time true GOAT talks come from being able to sustain it though. There have been quite a few that have been there besides MJ and Lebron. I think it was fairly indisputable after the 86 season who the BITW was. Same in 94-95. Same in 2000.

You can have the crown, but keeping it for an extended period is what gets you above the rest. Jokic still needs to prove that he can hold it.

[warriorfan]

Yeah he’s good

[FultzNationRISE]

HeÂ’s certainly in that elite class historically. Over time true GOAT talks come from being able to sustain it though. There have been quite a few that have been there besides MJ and Lebron. I think it was fairly indisputable after the 86 season who the BITW was. Same in 94-95. Same in 2000.

You can have the crown, but keeping it for an extended period is what gets you above the rest. Jokic still needs to prove that he can hold it.


Ok, but what part of his game is there any doubt of him sustaining? Over the last six years his fg% has gone from 50 to 51 to 53 to 57 to 58 to 63 while being a consistent 25 point scorer the last 4 years. He's also widely considered now the best passer in history. It's not a flash in the pan or a convergence of circumstances. This is not a TMac situation where he had one anomalously outsized statistical year. He's as good as the numbers say he is, and they say he's as good as anyone ever.

So what exactly is the threshold for sustaining a level? MJ had a consistent peak eFG of around 55% from 88-91 and a bunch of other years where he was 48%, 52%, 47%. He also averaged around 6 assists those years, most other years he was at 5 or less. What did he 'sustain' that Jokic isnt like to? Unless you count team success, which is simply not an intelligent way to compare players.

If he gets injured and retires tomorrow it doesnt change the fact he was as good as any other all time great. If people measure GOATs based on resumes, which are essentially an amalgamation of team awards and voter decisions (in other words arguing based on what other people thought) that's their prerogative to do. And anyone can personally rank him where they want. But arguing against him being near the top of someone else's list... I think will come off as pretty dumb personally. He's as good as anyone. Whatever criteria someone could come up with to say 'not yet' is likely not even gonna be consistent in the context of how they rank other players. People make up the most arbitrary reasons to think whatever they do.

But I dont. And I'm sayin it how it is!

[Phoenix]

He's about as pure a player as I've ever seen. If I were watching him in my teens and early 20's I'd have written him off as boring in the same way I didn't really appreciate Duncan until like....2010 or so. Get a bit of age on you and you start appreciating the nuances and the pure skill and how it's implemented. I could watch that dude 82 times a year, honestly.

[Kblaze8855]

He's as good as the numbers say he is, and they say he's as good as anyone ever.


*warning. 4 scroll post you only need like the last 3 paragraphs of*



Nah. Nobody is really their numbers. The numbers are too easily manipulated by the league you play in. Everything possible has been done to increase the ease with which offense works. There has never been as many players, who aren’t all time elite, who are producing like it in the period of time you just mentioned(the 6 years).

We have seen a 32/11/10 point average a triple double 4 times, a guy put up like 30/11/8 then have 3 straight better seasons getting up to like 37/8/7, a guy put up 30/14/6 in only 30 minutes a game(who was like 4 years from his peak at that) and be the DPOY, a guy just put up like 32/9/9 on 50% shooting and not even get consideration for best in the league. Lebron out there having his best two year run of scoring as the worst player he’s been in like 17 years. I think Oscar Robertson is the only historical precedent for Trae Young’s production. Steph has a couple seasons nobody else has ever had. Likely more if you go deep into the specifics of certain shooting numbers. KD just did 29 a game on 56/40/92 which nobody even noticed. I’m not certain Zion Williams stats have any historical comparison. I know that true, shooting percentage wise he’s one of the only three people to have a season scoring as much as he did. He did like 27 a game on over 60% shooting. I know will never did that. Or shack. Or Kareem. Jokic is for the first 6 games though. There has never been anyone with Embiids numbers. Shai is statistically prime Jordan with a better 3 point shot. Leonard has years of what used to be legendary production that nobody even talks about because of the madness going on around him.

People do Larry Bird numbers and not even be that highly regarded. It’s called an off year for some of these guys. And an awful lot of the guys I just mentioned also have championships on teams that were hardly overwhelming. I was not like people don’t pair this production with great success.

The people with the best numbers we have ever seen at the 1, 3, and 4 are definitely in the league and arguably the 2 and 5 as well. All depending on how much you choose to acknowledge the 60s. But far as the production this era is about as great an outlier far as individual production as that was.

it’s obviously doesn’t mean the players aren’t unbelievable. It just means the league they are in is playing along and trying to make sure they can display it. Dropped into a league 25 years ago with like 8 teams not even reaching 90 points per game and the lowest scoring team averaging less than 85 or even 82 he nor any of these guys is doing anything statistically legendary near these rates.

It doesn’t mean they would be worse at basketball in those conditions. Whatever he is now he would be then, but you need the league and the other teams to play along. It doesn’t matter how good you are if the other 29 teams won’t run to increase your number of possessions your numbers don’t look as good. If the coach has you in a rigid system with far fewer shooters and tries to grind out games 92 to 89? You will not produce as much. If the shot clock resets to 24 seconds on an offensive rebound so coaches like Mike Fratello, Lenny Wilkens, Jeff VanGundy, and Pat Riley can have a point dribble back out and intentionally slow down the pace and grind out the entire clock again? If you remove the eight second clock bringing the ball up? If you can grab and hold perimeter players? If the big men are facing lineups where even some mediocre teams have three All-Star quality true 250 pound plus bigmen? And if some of the greatest big men of all time arent guarded over and over and over by Wings who can’t even receive help without opening up a shooter?

I love Giannis and Jokić, but fact is even what we consider big physical teams can’t throw Ewing Oakley and Anthony Mason at them at the same time. They don’t have to play Hakeem and Otis Thorpe at the same time. Or battle Shaq and Horace Grant both for position. It’s a lot easier to go get 14 rebounds when the opposing frontcourt isn’t David Robinson and Dennis Rodman both playing in the same paint.

to be absolutely clear I’m not saying any of those things would prevent them from being exactly as good as they are now. I’m saying the statistical evidence of it would be considerably different.

It isn’t player specific. I’m not sure anybody on the star level in the entire NBA is as good as the numbers say they are. I wasn’t a numbers person decades ago, and what I’ve been seeing the last several years has only made me less of one.

Oh and to be clear again he obviously has the eye test skills if we didn’t even keep track of numbers. He’s not an all-time defender and he definitely benefits from playing in a league that seems disgusted by the idea of two true big men playing at the same time(go ahead and put Caleb Martin on Hakeem. See how that goes), but he’s got it all skills wise. I don’t think anybody anywhere will dispute that. The numbers though? I certainly can’t throw them out, but I feel it’s fair to acknowledge that he and the entire league play in a situation that caters to their production in a way the league traditionally did not.

I think it’s best to just talk the skills. He’s an all-time elite, skilled big, who has the advantage over everybody as a passer, and most as a shooter. But there are people who can score the same 30 a game in more difficult conditions to do it and they’re also top three or four all-time defensive players. It isn’t an unreasonable take to lean the other way. It just depends on the basketball they have to play to prosper in the situation you place them.

Hakeem can’t dribble or pass like him and he isn’t hitting a fadeaway three. In all likelihood, they’re both gonna put about the same points on the scoreboard in a similar situation, but it isn’t unheard of for Hakeem to literally block 10 shots get a bunch of steals and switch onto a Perimeter guy to prevent a drive and be quick enough to dive back into the paint to block his own man when the guard thinks he’s out of position. Dude was a freak as well.

And he probably isn’t the GOAT either.

there’s just so much competition for the top spots. I’ve never been able to consistently settle on one. Considering that I accept Larry Bird as a reasonable person‘s candidate I won’t totally dismiss the idea that Jokić could be in that conversation. I just haven’t decided how to credit what I see out of this bullshit league. I don’t know how I justifiably only pick one of the unprecedented production, unstoppable players, who have powered their teams to championships in, especially when all of the options I’ve been knocked out and outplayed by other options.

I kind of feel like I have to credit them all or credit none of them far is being as great as the combo of accomplishment and production suggests.

you almost want to throw out the first half of the 60s the last six or seven years and maybe three or four years of the 80s when you have these conversations.

Head scratching numbers went on a few times. Hakeem once did a rounded off 5 blocks and over 2 steals a game along with his customary 25 and 13-14. Is he going to do that in a league full of people who would just stop driving at him and start bombing threes? I’m not so sure about that. And I’m sure no coach would play him as many minutes as he played then either.

so, don’t think I’m saying only the players today had weird combos of numbers that are entirely reliant on being in the league they are in. I’m saying…..I don’t know if anyone is just…their numbers.

In way too many words of course. But I suspect you wanted a serious response considering your well thought out topic so…there it is. Now I’m off to Atlanta at least and Tampa at best. Getting ****ing cold outside and I don’t accept that.

[Baller234]

i agree that joker has put himself in the discussion of "indisputably the best player in the league", but i'm sorry you can't put him in the all time goat discussion until he's won a few more championships. you can take that as low level hot take discourse if you want, but it's the truth.

there is something to be said about not only being the best player in the league, but proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt and winning year in and year out over an extended period of time. and for that reason i want to respond to a specific thing you said


Fact is “GOAT” isnt a real thing (the only one with an argument is Lebron). Player A could be better than player B in one situation, player B better than C in another, and C better than A in another. Everyone plays under different circumstances, theres no measurement that can prove one guy is “greater” than everyone else.

the measurement is sample size and being able to prove you can dominate in any given situation. jokic's ring was impressive sure but by virtue of him only doing it once, the jury is still out on whether he can do it under ANY circumstance or against ANY team. he actually has to prove that first.

he also needs to prove he has that desire. assuming he does in fact win another title, does he take his foot off the gas or does he go even harder? we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that jordan even in his last year with the bulls was going to give you the same effort no matter what. his stomach was never full. he wanted to keep winning that badly. does jokic have that same type of mentality? i honestly don't know. like i said he has to prove it first.

for these reasons among others he still has a long way to go before he's being compared to the pantheon mount rushmore type guys.

[Xiao Yao You]

He's about as pure a player as I've ever seen. If I were watching him in my teens and early 20's I'd have written him off as boring in the same way I didn't really appreciate Duncan until like....2010 or so. Get a bit of age on you and you start appreciating the nuances and the pure skill and how it's implemented. I could watch that dude 82 times a year, honestly.

Loved papa Sabonis in my my 20's so I'm sure I would have loved Jokic too. Didn't really get him I guess from World Championship or olympics though I guess but once he was in the NBA I sure did

[ShawkFactory]

Ok, but what part of his game is there any doubt of him sustaining? Over the last six years his fg% has gone from 50 to 51 to 53 to 57 to 58 to 63 while being a consistent 25 point scorer the last 4 years. He's also widely considered now the best passer in history. It's not a flash in the pan or a convergence of circumstances. This is not a TMac situation where he had one anomalously outsized statistical year. He's as good as the numbers say he is, and they say he's as good as anyone ever.

So what exactly is the threshold for sustaining a level? MJ had a consistent peak eFG of around 55% from 88-91 and a bunch of other years where he was 48%, 52%, 47%. He also averaged around 6 assists those years, most other years he was at 5 or less. What did he 'sustain' that Jokic isnt like to? Unless you count team success, which is simply not an intelligent way to compare players.

If he gets injured and retires tomorrow it doesnt change the fact he was as good as any other all time great. If people measure GOATs based on resumes, which are essentially an amalgamation of team awards and voter decisions (in other words arguing based on what other people thought) that's their prerogative to do. And anyone can personally rank him where they want. But arguing against him being near the top of someone else's list... I think will come off as pretty dumb personally. He's as good as anyone. Whatever criteria someone could come up with to say 'not yet' is likely not even gonna be consistent in the context of how they rank other players. People make up the most arbitrary reasons to think whatever they do.

But I dont. And I'm sayin it how it is!

That's not the point. Who thought Bird was going to fall off so hard 2 years after 86? Again, many people have been on this level of comparative excellence in the game. When getting into actual GOAT talks the big picture does matter.

[90sgoat]

He's definitely in that top 10 discussion already.

I'll personally put him at 10 if he wins one more ring, but really, there's only a few players who really stand out in the top 10 like MJ, Kareem, Russell basically. You could add Shaq and Wilt.

From 5-12 it's a very similar group of players with Bird, Magic, Duncan, Kobe, Hakeem and then you have Lebron, Barkley, Malone etc.

I'd put Jokic in the Lebron, Barkley, Malone category now, but with a ring more, he gets in that Bird-Magic group.

[FultzNationRISE]

*warning. 4 scroll post you only need like the last 3 paragraphs of*

Nah. Nobody is really their numbers. The numbers are too easily manipulated by the league you play in. Everything possible has been done to increase the ease with which offense works. There has never been as many players, who aren’t all time elite, who are producing like it in the period of time you just mentioned(the 6 years).

We have seen a 32/11/10 point average a triple double 4 times, a guy put up like 30/11/8 then have 3 straight better seasons getting up to like 37/8/7, a guy put up 30/14/6 in only 30 minutes a game(who was like 4 years from his peak at that) and be the DPOY, a guy just put up like 32/9/9 on 50% shooting and not even get consideration for best in the league. Lebron out there having his best two year run of scoring as the worst player he’s been in like 17 years. I think Oscar Robertson is the only historical precedent for Trae Young’s production. Steph has a couple seasons nobody else has ever had. Likely more if you go deep into the specifics of certain shooting numbers. KD just did 29 a game on 56/40/92 which nobody even noticed. I’m not certain Zion Williams stats have any historical comparison. I know that true, shooting percentage wise he’s one of the only three people to have a season scoring as much as he did. He did like 27 a game on over 60% shooting. I know will never did that. Or shack. Or Kareem. Jokic is for the first 6 games though. There has never been anyone with Embiids numbers. Shai is statistically prime Jordan with a better 3 point shot. Leonard has years of what used to be legendary production that nobody even talks about because of the madness going on around him.

People do Larry Bird numbers and not even be that highly regarded. It’s called an off year for some of these guys. And an awful lot of the guys I just mentioned also have championships on teams that were hardly overwhelming. I was not like people don’t pair this production with great success.


I love Giannis and Jokić, but fact is even what we consider big physical teams can’t throw Ewing Oakley and Anthony Mason at them at the same time. They don’t have to play Hakeem and Otis Thorpe at the same time. Or battle Shaq and Horace Grant both for position. It’s a lot easier to go get 14 rebounds when the opposing frontcourt isn’t David Robinson and Dennis Rodman both playing in the same paint.

to be absolutely clear I’m not saying any of those things would prevent them from being exactly as good as they are now. I’m saying the statistical evidence of it would be considerably different.

It isn’t player specific. I’m not sure anybody on the star level in the entire NBA is as good as the numbers say they are. I wasn’t a numbers person decades ago, and what I’ve been seeing the last several years has only made me less of one.

Oh and to be clear again he obviously has the eye test skills if we didn’t even keep track of numbers. He’s not an all-time defender and he definitely benefits from playing in a league that seems disgusted by the idea of two true big men playing at the same time(go ahead and put Caleb Martin on Hakeem. See how that goes), but he’s got it all skills wise. I don’t think anybody anywhere will dispute that. The numbers though? I certainly can’t throw them out, but I feel it’s fair to acknowledge that he and the entire league play in a situation that caters to their production in a way the league traditionally did not.

I think it’s best to just talk the skills. He’s an all-time elite, skilled big, who has the advantage over everybody as a passer, and most as a shooter. But there are people who can score the same 30 a game in more difficult conditions to do it and they’re also top three or four all-time defensive players. It isn’t an unreasonable take to lean the other way. It just depends on the basketball they have to play to prosper in the situation you place them.

Hakeem can’t dribble or pass like him and he isn’t hitting a fadeaway three. In all likelihood, they’re both gonna put about the same points on the scoreboard in a similar situation, but it isn’t unheard of for Hakeem to literally block 10 shots get a bunch of steals and switch onto a Perimeter guy to prevent a drive and be quick enough to dive back into the paint to block his own man when the guard thinks he’s out of position. Dude was a freak as well.

And he probably isn’t the GOAT either.

there’s just so much competition for the top spots. I’ve never been able to consistently settle on one. Considering that I accept Larry Bird as a reasonable person‘s candidate I won’t totally dismiss the idea that Jokić could be in that conversation. I just haven’t decided how to credit what I see out of this bullshit league. I don’t know how I justifiably only pick one of the unprecedented production, unstoppable players, who have powered their teams to championships in, especially when all of the options I’ve been knocked out and outplayed by other options.

I kind of feel like I have to credit them all or credit none of them far is being as great as the combo of accomplishment and production suggests.

you almost want to throw out the first half of the 60s the last six or seven years and maybe three or four years of the 80s when you have these conversations.

Head scratching numbers went on a few times. Hakeem once did a rounded off 5 blocks and over 2 steals a game along with his customary 25 and 13-14. Is he going to do that in a league full of people who would just stop driving at him and start bombing threes? I’m not so sure about that. And I’m sure no coach would play him as many minutes as he played then either.

so, don’t think I’m saying only the players today had weird combos of numbers that are entirely reliant on being in the league they are in. I’m saying…..I don’t know if anyone is just…their numbers.

In way too many words of course. But I suspect you wanted a serious response considering your well thought out topic so…there it is. Now I’m off to Atlanta at least and Tampa at best. Getting ****ing cold outside and I don’t accept that.


I dont disagree that stats dont tell the story about things and they dont make sense to compare across eras. My point was just that in addition to what the metrics all say regarding Joker, the eye test confirms it. He’s CRAZY good. Since both of these measures, numbers and eye test, verify each other, it’s pretty unlikely either is a fluke.

[elementally morale]

Not a GOAT list, BUT

In terms of basketball skill AND decision making AND big plays when itt matters (and putting accolades aside) I have the following players since 1980

Magic
Bird
Jordan
Hakeem
Duncan
Jokic

With other players something is lacking for me. Yes, I could include Shaq and LeBron. Kareem. On pure basketball skill and big moments alone I could include Kobe. Or Nash, based on decision making and skill. I can make a case for Dirk or Barkley. So the above list os not a GOAT list just some personal preference. Overall impact on the game from a perspective I find entertaining.

If Jokic decided that 50% FG is good enough he could easily go for 40+ points a game. But for the greater good he decides to be an unselfish playmaker with out of this world passing ability. 64% FG, 40% from 3. 27/12
And he makes the team fun to watch while the results are still there. Pairing all this with his laid-back stlye it really is amazing.

[FultzNationRISE]

i agree that joker has put himself in the discussion of "indisputably the best player in the league", but i'm sorry you can't put him in the all time goat discussion until he's won a few more championships. you can take that as low level hot take discourse if you want, but it's the truth.

there is something to be said about not only being the best player in the league, but proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt and winning year in and year out over an extended period of time. and for that reason i want to respond to a specific thing you said



the measurement is sample size and being able to prove you can dominate in any given situation. jokic's ring was impressive sure but by virtue of him only doing it once, the jury is still out on whether he can do it under ANY circumstance or against ANY team. he actually has to prove that first.

he also needs to prove he has that desire. assuming he does in fact win another title, does he take his foot off the gas or does he go even harder? we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that jordan even in his last year with the bulls was going to give you the same effort no matter what. his stomach was never full. he wanted to keep winning that badly. does jokic have that same type of mentality? i honestly don't know. like i said he has to prove it first.

for these reasons among others he still has a long way to go before he's being compared to the pantheon mount rushmore type guys.


Thats fine, but you are doing it so you can maintain a safe position that wont be challenged by others. Because that view doesnt actually make sense when comparing individual basketball players. It has no merit. None. But you will continue to use it and thats fine, thats your right. It’s what the majority wants this particular discussion boiled down to for ease of comprehension, and if you go in another direction youll have to be able to acquit your views deftly. This is daunting for most.

People go with dogma when theyre afraid of having to defend a position - even one they feel deep down may be right - against critics. If they take the view everyone else does, it’s the critic who looks like the one who’s off base.

It’s fear based, not reason based.

“Because rings” is not a good reason.

[FultzNationRISE]

That's not the point. Who thought Bird was going to fall off so hard 2 years after 86? Again, many people have been on this level of comparative excellence in the game. When getting into actual GOAT talks the big picture does matter.


But there is no objective GOAT besides Lebron. And he’s not even the GOAT for his longevity. It’s because he dominated with an impact that is unsurpassed, and he proved it’s who he was and not a fluke.

TMac had a year where he scored 32 on like 46%. That was a single season anomaly, and those things happen. But THAT level wasnt who he was. The next season he scored 28 on 42%. He was a good player but that one epic season wasnt who he was.

Jokic has done what he’s doing long enough to prove this is who he is. So I can now compare this level he’s on to the level other great players showed they actually were. Not one peak season vs one peak season, or a 20 year career vs a 20 year career. But… “who were they really?”

Bron, Wilt, MJ, Hakeem, whoever. His level of impact on the court is not clearly surpassed by any of them. He’s as good a player purely in terms of positive contributions to a basketball result, as anyone.

Thats my measure of these things. Other people can use other criteria I guess, altho I fail to see the logic in much of it.

[Baller234]

I dont disagree that stats dont tell the story about things and they dont make sense to compare across eras. My point was just that in addition to what the metrics all say regarding Joker, the eye test confirms it. He’s CRAZY good. Since both of these measures, numbers and eye test, verify each other, it’s pretty unlikely either is a fluke.

he can't score at will though, which means sometimes he has to defer to murray and play the 2 man game.

not a knock on him, but if we are calling him the greatest EVER... it's something that needs to be said.

[90sgoat]

Not a GOAT list, BUT

Kareem.

I agree with your list but Kareem needs to be on it too, because no one else in the history of the game, except Magic, has been able to master the skyhook.

That's really incredible. It's in many ways like MJ, no guard, but Kobe, has been able to replicate the fadeaway. Dirk did it, but he was a 7 footer. D-Wade could sometimes, but not as an unblockable staple.

Kareem and MJ share that, they have the "unstoppable" staple shot. You could argue Shaq "below the basket" or Hakeem "dream shake", but those are not staple shots like the skyhook or the fadeaway.

If going by that criteria, you might want to include someone like Reggie Miller, who could get his shot off against all defense, in all positions, falling in all directions. Curry of course, but Reggie could hit 3s off balance more. The 3 for Reggie was an unstoppable staple shot.

[elementally morale]

I agree with your list but Kareem needs to be on it too, because no one else in the history of the game, except Magic, has been able to master the skyhook.

Again, personal preference: Kareem was not entertaining enough for me (since 1980) and I feel Magic was the better player of the two in the 80s. But it surely is debatable. I can understand someone including LeBron or Shaq. I won't... but it is NOT based on 'logic'. It's just a reflection of what I personally value.

[Xiao Yao You]

Again, personal preference: Kareem was not entertaining enough for me (since 1980) and I feel Magic was the better player of the two in the 80s. But it surely is debatable. I can understand someone including LeBron or Shaq. I won't... but it is NOT based on 'logic'. It's just a reflection of what I personally value.

2nd fiddles don't belong and that's what Kareem was after his first title

[SouBeachTalents]

He's definitely in that top 10 discussion already.

I'll personally put him at 10 if he wins one more ring, but really, there's only a few players who really stand out in the top 10 like MJ, Kareem, Russell basically. You could add Shaq and Wilt.

From 5-12 it's a very similar group of players with Bird, Magic, Duncan, Kobe, Hakeem and then you have Lebron, Barkley, Malone etc.

I'd put Jokic in the Lebron, Barkley, Malone category now, but with a ring more, he gets in that Bird-Magic group.

2nd fiddles don't belong and that's what Kareem was after his first title
Some really good takes in the thread.

[r0drig0lac]

probably the same thing can be said about 20 other players in history if we analyze their peak.

[90sgoat]

probably the same thing can be said about 20 other players in history if we analyze their peak.

True.

As of now, it's very much a Hakeem situation, where Jokic is clearly in a league of his own and doing great things, but ultimately, we're yet not sure if he can keep up that level enough to win several rings.

[Xiao Yao You]

True.

As of now, it's very much a Hakeem situation, where Jokic is clearly in a league of his own and doing great things, but ultimately, we're yet not sure if he can keep up that level enough to win several rings.

Hakeem was in a league of his own because the Goat retired

[elementally morale]

True.

As of now, it's very much a Hakeem situation, where Jokic is clearly in a league of his own and doing great things, but ultimately, we're yet not sure if he can keep up that level enough to win several rings.

I'm pretty sure Jokic can keep up his current level for many years. Winning rings is hard and Hakeem started to do that too late in his career. Not because of his level. With the Nuggets I have the feeling it's Jokic and some very good role players. Murray... he is better than a role player but not a star. He is not Booker. I think not even Donovan Mitchell. The Celtics have much better players than the Nuggets. The Suns, too. The Bucks seem to be more stacked. OKC has a very high ceiling. So IF the Nuggets win a few more rings it's overachieving. Based on players alone they are not the favorites. If they pull it off it has to be Jokic puling it off. It rarely is true but in this case it is: the Nuggets really are as good as Jokic makes them.

[tpols]

He's got a case but still he ain't better than MJ. GOAT offense but his defense is average while Jordan also had GOAT offense but was also one of the best perimeter defenders ever.

[Xiao Yao You]

I'm pretty sure Jokic can keep up his current level for many years. Winning rings is hard and Hakeem started to do that too late in his career. Not because of his level. With the Nuggets I have the feeling it's Jokic and some very good role players. Murray... he is better than a role player but not a star. He is not Booker. I think not even Donovan Mitchell. The Celtics have much better players than the Nuggets. The Suns, too. The Bucks seem to be more stacked. OKC has a very high ceiling. So IF the Nuggets win a few more rings it's overachieving. Based on players alone they are not the favorites. If they pull it off it has to be Jokic puling it off. It rarely is true but in this case it is: the Nuggets really are as good as Jokic makes them.

He's a lot better than Mitchell. Nuggets wouldn't have won with Mitchell. A no defense gunner

[tpols]

He's a lot better than Mitchell. Nuggets wouldn't have won with Mitchell. A no defense gunner

Murray doesn't play defense either.

Mitchell's efficiency right now is almost in the 50/40/90 sharpshooter club on 30+ ppg volume. A lot of what you say is just factually incorrect.

[Xiao Yao You]

Murray doesn't play defense either.

Mitchell's efficiency right now is almost in the 50/40/90 sharpshooter club on 30+ ppg volume. A lot of what you say is just factually incorrect.

Murray gives absolutely no effort on defense like Mitchell? Mitchell has the length and the body but refuses to even give an effort at that end. I'm not incorrect about Mitchell. I watched most of his career. Scoring points isn't enough to excite me sorry

[FireDavidKahn]

There are no words to describe Jokic.

Dude is a turnstile on defense and yet his offense is just so beyond good that he is still the most impactful player in the NBA.

He has already cemented himself has a top 5 offensive player ever at minimum.

[FultzNationRISE]

Murray doesn't play defense either.

Mitchell's efficiency right now is almost in the 50/40/90 sharpshooter club on 30+ ppg volume. A lot of what you say is just factually incorrect.

Yeah but in the playoffs Mitchell gets his, but he doesnt elevate the team.

It’s not that the team losing is in itself a knock on him. But every year I watch him, even before the outcome is I decided I notice a guy who doesnt seem to have great feel for how to USE his scoring to control the game and get his team better chances. Thats why he loses to guys like Brunson and Luka. He’s not great at reading what the team actually needs him to do, he’s just in “look to make a difficult shot” mode. I dont think hes being selfish or lazy etc I think he just doesnt have great instincts for what to do in a given situation besides look to make a tough shot. It’s nice he can do that but it’s not enough and just looking at a statline wont tell you who he is.

Thats really my point about this “GOAT” stuff. Looking at a resumé doesnt tell you who a guy is. I see what Joker is doing and it’s easy enough for me to tell who he is. Same with anyone else in history that Ive watched. So the resumé is immaterial. Im comparing who each guy really is while the game is happening, not what lines on a piece of paper say about him.

I dont get why other people dont do it that way.

[Xiao Yao You]

Yeah but in the playoffs Mitchell gets his, but he doesnt elevate the team.

It’s not that the team losing is in itself a knock on him. But every year I watch him, even before the outcome is I decided I notice a guy who doesnt seem to have great feel for how to USE his scoring to control the game and get his team better chances. Thats why he loses to guys like Brunson and Luka. He’s not great at reading what the team actually needs him to do, he’s just in “look to make a difficult shot” mode. I dont think hes being selfish or lazy etc I think he just doesnt have great instincts for what to do in a given situation besides look to make a tough shot. It’s nice he can do that but it’s not enough and just looking at a statline wont tell you who he is.

Thats really my point about this “GOAT” stuff. Looking at a resumé doesnt tell you who a guy is. I see what Joker is doing and it’s easy enough for me to tell who he is. Same with anyone else in history that Ive watched. So the resumé is immaterial. Im comparing who each guy really is while the game is happening, not what lines on a piece of paper say about him.

I dont get why other people dont do it that way.

pretty much. He doesn't make the right play. He could have been Gobert's Stockton but him and The Bum were too busy getting theirs instead of what was the right play. Cavs even have more talent around him. If he was as great as the hype people would be talking about the Cavs. They aren't

[Wally450]

Subtle trolling within the post. Love it.

[warriorfan]

Yeah but in the playoffs Mitchell gets his, but he doesnt elevate the team.

It’s not that the team losing is in itself a knock on him. But every year I watch him, even before the outcome is I decided I notice a guy who doesnt seem to have great feel for how to USE his scoring to control the game and get his team better chances. He’s never really reads what the team needs him to do, he’s just always in “look to make a difficult shot” mode. It’s nice he can do that but just looking st a statline wont tell you who he is.

Thats really my point about this “GOAT” stuff. Looking at a resumé doesnt tell you who a guy is. I see what Joker is doing and it’s easy enough for me to tell who he is. Same with anyone else in history that Ive watched. So the resumé is immaterial. Im comparing who each guy really is while the game is happening, not what lines on a piece of paper say about him.

I dont get why other people dont do it that way.

You have to use both stats and eye test and have them both guide each other in a way.

Stats can lie, eye test can lie. You need to use them both to double check each other.

When we look at stats without watching and don’t fully account for the context behind those stats… Like we can take Jayson Tatum’s statline and compare it to Larry Bird and make the conclusion they were similar levels of players. Stats say it’s true but it obviously isn’t. We know the context behind rule and style changes that have lead to an inflation of stats, if we watch them both we can see that the stats are lying and they aren’t similar in level.

Eye test can also be deceiving as well. We can’t realistically watch every play of every game in the season. Even if you catch every play for half the games and are paying full attention, you are only seeing half of the sample size. There could be things going on in games you miss and you aren’t “recording it” with your eye test.

Then with the eye test we have to address our biases, not only our obvious ones but our unconscious biases. We may like someone more based on a connection with them somehow, or even if we don’t know the exact reason, everyone has their players they like more then others on the team. It can be for subtle subconscious reasons or it can be purely random.

What i’m getting at is it’s more difficult than we think to set aside certain biases with the eye test, even if you are being aware of them and trying to not be biased.


So there’s obviously issues with both using statistics and using the eye test. That’s why I believe using them in concert while making sure to take into account the context of the numbers is the best way to evaluate a player.

[FultzNationRISE]

pretty much. He doesn't make the right play. He could have been Gobert's Stockton but him and The Bum were too busy getting theirs instead of what was the right play. Cavs even have more talent around him. If he was as great as the hype people would be talking about the Cavs. They aren't


Exactly. Gobert was as good as Malone.

Better, even.

[tpols]

Yeah but in the playoffs Mitchell gets his, but he doesnt elevate the team.

It’s not that the team losing is in itself a knock on him. But every year I watch him, even before the outcome is I decided I notice a guy who doesnt seem to have great feel for how to USE his scoring to control the game and get his team better chances. Thats why he loses to guys like Brunson and Luka. He’s not great at reading what the team actually needs him to do, he’s just in “look to make a difficult shot” mode. I dont think hes being selfish or lazy etc I think he just doesnt have great instincts for what to do in a given situation besides look to make a tough shot. It’s nice he can do that but it’s not enough and just looking at a statline wont tell you who he is.

Thats really my point about this “GOAT” stuff. Looking at a resumé doesnt tell you who a guy is. I see what Joker is doing and it’s easy enough for me to tell who he is. Same with anyone else in history that Ive watched. So the resumé is immaterial. Im comparing who each guy really is while the game is happening, not what lines on a piece of paper say about him.

I dont get why other people dont do it that way.


I agree with this but Murray isn't really a big teammate elevator either. And let's be real playing with jokic is a huge boon to your numbers and performance compared to playing with Rudy gobert and a bunch of nobodies. Murray wouldn't even make the playoffs with Cleveland.

[Xiao Yao You]

Exactly. Gobert was as good as Malone.

Better, even.

didn't say that. Great pick and roll player. Ideally your best players are the heart of everything. Conley, Hill, Hayward, Ingles with Gobert were great but for them to exceed expectations Mitchell needed to be that guy and he wasn't

[Xiao Yao You]

I agree with this but Murray isn't really a big teammate elevator either. And let's be real playing with jokic is a huge boon to your numbers and performance compared to playing with Rudy gobert and a bunch of nobodies. Murray wouldn't even make the playoffs with Cleveland.

Murray and Jokic play great off of each other. Mitchell plays great off one person himself. The Cavs with Garland. Murray, Mobley and Allen wouldn't make the playoffs? :lol

[tpols]

pretty much. He doesn't make the right play. He could have been Gobert's Stockton but him and The Bum were too busy getting theirs instead of what was the right play. Cavs even have more talent around him. If he was as great as the hype people would be talking about the Cavs. They aren't

Goberts offense is trash bro. Stockton got to play with a top 5 all time scoring champion for his as entire career. Night and day difference offensively and overall between Karl Malone and Rudy gobert. A Galactical margin.

[Xiao Yao You]

Goberts offense is trash bro. Stockton got to play with a top 5 all time scoring champion for his as entire career. Night and day difference offensively and overall between Karl Malone and Rudy gobert. A Galactical margin.

and yet he's been one of the most impactful offensive players in the league. Stockton would have made him look even better as he did with Malone

[tpols]

Murray and Jokic play great off of each other. Mitchell plays great off one person himself. The Cavs with Garland. Murray, Mobley and Allen wouldn't make the playoffs? :lol

Murray doesn't have the stamina to carry a team for 82 games. He's good in spurts which is why he is a valuable playoff asset... btw none of those guys you name dropped are particularly impressive. Especially compared to jokic, thats super weak by comparison.

[warriorfan]

Murray and Jokic play great off of each other. Mitchell plays great off one person himself. The Cavs with Garland. Murray, Mobley and Allen wouldn't make the playoffs? :lol

that’s like saying a player had great chemistry with chris paul and bashing another player because he didn’t have the same chemistry with patrick beverly

lmaoooo

[tpols]

and yet he's been one of the most impactful offensive players in the league. Stockton would have made him look even better as he did with Malone

You're out of your damn mind calling Rudy g0bert one of the best offensive players in the league.

[FultzNationRISE]

I agree with this but Murray isn't really a big teammate elevator either. And let's be real playing with jokic is a huge boon to your numbers and performance compared to playing with Rudy gobert and a bunch of nobodies. Murray wouldn't even make the playoffs with Cleveland.


Murray’s first instinct is definitely to look for a shot, but actually Joker’s influence has rubbed off on him a lot and when he focuses on making the right play he’s pretty good at it.

Theres def pressure on him not to chuck too much when hes playing next to the BITW, and maybe on a team like the Cavs he wouldnt have the discipline to avoid it. But I do think he’s capable of being a better playmaker when he wants to be than Mitchell is. With Murray Ive at least seen flashes of it. Mitchell I dont really recall any. (Not saying Mitchell’s never made a good pass, just in terms of looking in control for an extended period).

[Xiao Yao You]

Murray doesn't have the stamina to carry a team for 82 games. He's good in spurts which is why he is a valuable playoff asset... btw none of those guys you name dropped are particularly impressive. Especially compared to jokic, thats super weak by comparison.

2 all stars and a future all star/DPOTY with Murray

[Xiao Yao You]

You're out of your damn mind calling Rudy g0bert one of the best offensive players in the league.

I said impactful. Elite finisher/elite rim runner/elite screener/elite pick and roller/ elite offensive rebounder. If the great Mitchell could run the pick and roll they would have been unstoppabble. He only knows iso. That doesn't work with Jokic

[warriorfan]

I said impactful. Elite finisher/elite rim runner/elite screener/elite pick and roller/ elite offensive rebounder. If the great Mitchell could run the pick and roll they would have been unstoppabble. He only knows iso. That doesn't work with Jokic

I’m sure they would have figured something out.

You aren’t realizing that rudy is like the worst offensive player in the league and jokic is the best.

That sort of thing usually makes a little bit of difference.

[Kblaze8855]

and yet he's been one of the most impactful offensive players in the league. Stockton would have made him look even better as he did with Malone


He really really really really isn’t.

[Xiao Yao You]

Murray’s first instinct is definitely to look for a shot, but actually Joker’s influence has rubbed off on him a lot and when he focuses on making the right play he’s pretty good at it.

Theres def pressure on him not to chuck too much when hes playing next to the BITW, and maybe on a team like the Cavs he wouldnt have the discipline to avoid it. But I do think he’s capable of being a better playmaker when he wants to be than Mitchell is. With Murray Ive at least seen flashes of it. Mitchell I dont really recall any. (Not saying Mitchell’s never made a good pass, just in terms of looking in control for an extended period).

Mitchell has made some great one handed passes with his baseball background but he's mostly about getting his. Has the tools just not the mindset. No one is talking about the Cavs. They are talking about Mitchell eventually going to the Knicks.

[Xiao Yao You]

I’m sure they would have figured something out.

You aren’t realizing that rudy is like the worst offensive player in the league and jokic is the best.

That sort of thing usually makes a little bit of difference.

how can someone that is elite at so many parts of the offensive game be the worst offensive player in the league. The Bum scores more but his impact is on his own team. He's lost at least two games this season with his awful play while Gobert carried bad teams to the playoffs

[tpols]

I said impactful. Elite finisher/elite rim runner/elite screener/elite pick and roller/ elite offensive rebounder. If the great Mitchell could run the pick and roll they would have been unstoppabble. He only knows iso. That doesn't work with Jokic

Jokic presence alone would elevate Mitchell which is scary because he's had playoff series of 35+/5+/5+ on super elite efficiency at times. He's had some bad ones too but if he can achieve a playoff ceiling like that by himself offensively like he did on Utah, playing with jokic would unlock a super beast mode in him.

I remember when Mitchell dropped 36/5/5 on totally absurd 50/50/95 splits vs Denver in the playoffs in a close 7 game series loss to Jokic, and you STILL hated on him for that performance!

It's beyond crazy man. I've never seen more irrational hate and that's saying something for this message board.

[dankok8]

Jokic is absolutely incredible. I don't take issue with people comparing his peak to the likes of Kareem and Shaq. He's totally in that discussion.

[Xiao Yao You]

Jokic presence alone would elevate Mitchell which is scary because he's had playoff series of 35+/5+/5+ on super elite efficiency at times. He's had some bad ones too but if he can achieve a playoff ceiling like that by himself offensively like he did on Utah, playing with jokic would unlock a super beast mode in him.

I remember when Mitchell dropped 36/5/5 on totally absurd 50/50/95 splits vs Denver in the playoffs in a close 7 game series loss to Jokic, and you STILL hated on him for that performance!

It's beyond crazy man. I've never seen more irrational hate and that's saying something for this message board.

We all remember the bubble and Murray doing the same thing at the other end while The Bum and Mitchell stood around watching him. You need to build around your best player. Mitchell makes little sense with Jokic as he made little sense with Gobert or the Cavs. He's not a team guy. He's an I guy which is what the general public wants I guess. But basketball is a team sport to Jokic, Gobert and I and maybe a few others

[warriorfan]

We all remember the bubble and Murray doing the same thing at the other end while The Bum and Mitchell stood around watching him. You need to build around your best player. Mitchell makes little sense with Jokic as he made little sense with Gobert or the Cavs. He's not a team guy. He's an I guy which is what the general public wants I guess. But basketball is a team sport to Jokic, Gobert and I and maybe a few others

Yeah. Basketball is a team sport, that’s why no one wants to play with Gobert, he sucks.

If you asked every guard in the NBA who they would rather play with out of Gobert or Jokic, what do you think the results would look like? :lol

[tpols]

We all remember the bubble and Murray doing the same thing at the other end while The Bum and Mitchell stood around watching him. You need to build around your best player. Mitchell makes little sense with Jokic as he made little sense with Gobert or the Cavs. He's not a team guy. He's an I guy which is what the general public wants I guess. But basketball is a team sport to Jokic, Gobert and I and maybe a few others

Gobert is perplexing to me because he grew up in Europe where they drill fundamentals hard-core and the guy can't even make a ****ing hook shot or 10 foot jumper. Like... youre 7 feet tall, long strong and athletic... what's so hard about sealing a guy off 1-2 dribbles and putting up a little baby hook shot? Bums at the YMCA can do this stuff and a pro whose played his whole life can't? It's flat out embarrassing. I remember Rudy in the playoffs being so clumsy on offense I was in a borderline state of shock. And the kicker? I remember the opposing offense purposely drawing him out to the perimeter and abusing him on defense! :roll:

I couldnt even ****ing believe it.

[elementally morale]

Sorry for mentioning Murray and Mitchell. I didn't know it would derail the thread.

On another note, I'll give you a personal list of players with the highest entertainment value for me over the years.

Magic
Bird
Barkley
Hakeem
Shaq
Kobe
Manu
Vince
Nash
Curry
Jokic

Nothing to do with rankings nor 'peak level of play'.

Out of these players the most entertaining to me are Magic and Jokic. It's absolutely a beauty is in the eye of the beholder thing. As such, not debatable. ;-)

[Xiao Yao You]

Yeah. Basketball is a team sport, that’s why no one wants to play with Gobert, he sucks.

If you asked every guard in the NBA who they would rather play with out of Gobert or Jokic, what do you think the results would look like? :lol

Preferring Jokic must mean the other guy sucks. Bet you Conley would choose Gobert over Mitchell as would the other winners he played with. The Bum might too because he wouldn't see the ball as much with Mitchell

[Kblaze8855]

I dont disagree that stats dont tell the story about things and they dont make sense to compare across eras. My point was just that in addition to what the metrics all say regarding Joker, the eye test confirms it. He’s CRAZY good. Since both of these measures, numbers and eye test, verify each other, it’s pretty unlikely either is a fluke.


Yes. He’s crazy good. I’d like to think that’s undisputed. I just don’t know how to compare what he’s doing to what people used to have to do when I see this 54 times in the finals because we have a “switch everything” league:


https://i.ibb.co/LPv59X4/IMG-6771.gif




Some of the first touches right off the bat finals game one of the largest and most skilled players in the game is being guarded by a wing with no help. My friends and I were chuckling the whole finals watching Butler, Caleb Martin, and the rotation of fours pressed into duty as centers because of the small ball era trying to guard this guy. Which isn’t to say Bam isn’t a good defender but he’s the only person on the roster Id want guarding anyone big…and he’s 6’9”.

Mismatches existed in every era, and you could find some wing on a center to show a picture of as well. But what todays bigs have to work with is wild.

Embiid out here with lanky 6’7” “power forwards” getting tossed out of the way and getting switches where he’s guarded by a 2 and nobody can even come help because of the shooters.

Its easy mode for a true old school big game who can get his around the basket.

If Boban could move his feet enough to play even subpar defense he’d probably put up 22-14 in 28 minutes.

for a guy like Jokić, who could legitimately go head to head with the all-time great bigs if he were in those times, getting to play these tiny ass ill-equipped front lines must be such a cakewalk. It’s no wonder he looks bored half the time.

I watch these games and remember when a team might have Sabonis, Rasheed, and Brian Grant all starting. Brian Grant was bigger than Bam and he was a 3 for a while on the Blazers. Same season the Pacers had not one…but three prime aged all star centers and Derek Mckey on top of it who would be a small ball center now and could guard 5 positions.

Teams were built for decades to do something about guys like Jokic and Embiid and now they are built to do something about Steph and Booker to the point they don’t even have post defenders because it’s only an issue 6 games a season.

Nobody trying to play Ewing, Oakley, and Mason together. Why would you?

So Tatum can hit 9 threes?

The issue I have isn’t if these guys are crazy good.

That goes without saying.

My issue is crazy good + league that isn’t built to contain you being compared to crazy good + league that spent 50 years working on the you problem.

I don’t know how to do the comparison but the question of “Top ____ ever” kinda requires it.

Id rather just puss out and say I don’t know.

I know Jokic is a goon and a goblin inside.

I don’t know what Kareem would be if you put a 3 on him and didn’t send help because 4 shooters are waiting.

I think it’s best to just call them all great and leave it there.

[Xiao Yao You]

Gobert is perplexing to me because he grew up in Europe where they drill fundamentals hard-core and the guy can't even make a ****ing hook shot or 10 foot jumper. Like... youre 7 feet tall, long strong and athletic... what's so hard about sealing a guy off 1-2 dribbles and putting up a little baby hook shot? Bums at the YMCA can do this stuff and a pro whose played his whole life can't? It's flat out embarrassing. I remember Rudy in the playoffs being so clumsy on offense I was in a borderline state of shock. And the kicker? I remember the opposing offense purposely drawing him out to the perimeter and abusing him on defense! :roll:

I could even ****ing believe it.

he can make those. COTM wanted the highest % shots which are 3's, dunks and free throws. Gobert gives you 2 of the 3. He was abused on D because he was trying to cover 5 guys by himself because of Mitchell and others. Team sport at both ends

[tpols]

Sorry for mentioning Murray and Mitchell. I didn't know it would derail the thread.

On another note, I'll give you a personal list of players with the highest entertainment value for me over the years.

Magic
Bird
Barkley
Hakeem
Shaq
Kobe
Manu
Vince
Nash
Curry
Jokic

Nothing to do with rankings nor 'peak level of play'.

Out of these players the most entertaining to me are Magic and Jokic. It's absolutely a beauty is in the eye of the beholder thing. As such, not debatable. ;-)

It's not really much of a derailment since Murray is linked to jokic. And Jokic is so GOAT there's really not much else to say lol.

[Kblaze8855]

he can make those. COTM wanted the highest % shots which are 3's, dunks and free throws. Gobert gives you 2 of the 3. He was abused on D because he was trying to cover 5 guys by himself because of Mitchell and others. Team sport at both ends

he was abused on defense because playing him heavy minutes requires a throwback, defensive play style that relies on funneling everyone into the big like you’re the Pat Riley heat, but in the playoffs when some team can just put five shooters on the floor and they don’t need to come in the paint to begin with? You have to rebuild your full year strategy from scratch because people who have relied on help defense all year no longer have it because the key to that defense is 28 feet from the basket trying not to give up threes.

it’s incredibly effective in the regular season when teams simply play their default style because when you play someone different every night you can’t be rebuilding the game plan. When you’re gonna play the same team over and over and over they can just create an offense where a ShotBlocker who doesn’t switch as comfortably as somebody like Draymond Green is easily exploitable.

The problem isn’t his ability. The problem is the era he plays in. He is simply not built to win in the playoffs because he demands a play style that is easily countered. You just stick him in the lane and he can defend an entire team when the other team doesn’t care enough to change its whole office to prevent it. in the playoffs when they do care enough, he can’t defend an entire team because when it counts, they’re just gonna drag him to the three-point line and the same defense that worked in the regular season because he was standing in the paint certainly doesn’t work anymore because he isn’t. So he’s running back-and-forth getting shield and giving up layups both.

Guy simply isn’t as useful to winning when it matters as you want to act like he eels because this isn’t 1998. And 30 years ago he could defend everybody even in the playoffs because they will come to him. Guards getting blown by isn’t a problem when you’re in the lane to prevent the layup. That’s what allows people like him with incredibly limited offensive ability to stay on the floor. It always has. But when all five players can shoot somebody like him might have to get the **** off the floor, because he isn’t gonna provide enough on the other end to justify playing when he becomes an exploitable defensive mismatch.

in this era that doesn’t even allow great perimeter defenders to play the kind of defense necessary to stop great scorers on the perimeter? He’s an absolute liability in the playoffs.

we have guys like Jrue Holliday giving up 56 points. Defense is near impossible on a star who has it going. An average to bad defender can score enough to offset it. When somebody like Gobert is rendered average through the other teams game planning, he can’t do shit to be useful but set screens and be in the way.

Just not a guy who would ever be as valuable in the playoffs as he can be for 82 games the other team isn’t that worried about winning. We have all seen it for a long time and we’re going to see it for quite a while longer. Just isn’t built for this when it counts. Not his fault it isn’t 1993 anymore but it isn’t.

Guys like him need a dynamic wing who can go crazy to offset the fact that their defense is simply not as valuable when the other team game plans for it. Unfortunately for him he’s playing with his second possible Hall of Fame wing who wants him to get the **** out of the way because he isn’t as useful as you think he is.

Seems Mitchell didn’t **** with him, and Edwards was criticizing him before he got there and has made some jokes and remarks while they’ve been teammates. He’s 0 for 2 forming bonds with his star wings right now.

Gonna end up feuding with Ja Morant looking for touches before you know it.

[warriorfan]

Yes. He’s crazy good. I’d like to think that’s undisputed. I just don’t know how to compare what he’s doing to what people used to have to do when I see this 54 times in the finals because we have a “switch everything” league:


https://i.ibb.co/LPv59X4/IMG-6771.gif




Some of the first touches right off the bat finals game one of the largest and most skilled players in the game is being guarded by a wing with no help. My friends and I were chuckling the whole finals watching Butler, Caleb Martin, and the rotation of fours pressed into duty as centers because of the small ball era trying to guard this guy. Which isn’t to say Bam isn’t a good defender but he’s the only person on the roster Id want guarding anyone big…and he’s 6’9”.

Mismatches existed in every era, and you could find some wing on a center to show a picture of as well. But what todays bigs have to work with is wild.

Embiid out here with lanky 6’7” “power forwards” getting tossed out of the way and getting switches where he’s guarded by a 2 and nobody can even come help because of the shooters.

Its easy mode for a true old school big game who can get his around the basket.

If Boban could move his feet enough to play even subpar defense he’d probably put up 22-14 in 28 minutes.

for a guy like Jokić, who could legitimately go head to head with the all-time great bigs if he were in those times, getting to play these tiny ass ill-equipped front lines must be such a cakewalk. It’s no wonder he looks bored half the time.

I watch these games and remember when a team might have Sabonis, Rasheed, and Brian Grant all starting. Brian Grant was bigger than Bam and he was a 3 for a while on the Blazers. Same season the Pacers had not one…but three prime aged all star centers and Derek Mckey on top of it who would be a small ball center now and could guard 5 positions.

Teams were built for decades to do something about guys like Jokic and Embiid and now they are built to do something about Steph and Booker to the point they don’t even have post defenders because it’s only an issue 6 games a season.

Nobody trying to play Ewing, Oakley, and Mason together. Why would you?

So Tatum can hit 9 threes?

The issue I have isn’t if these guys are crazy good.

That goes without saying.

My issue is crazy good + league that isn’t built to contain you being compared to crazy good + league that spent 50 years working on the you problem.

I don’t know how to do the comparison but the question of “Top ____ ever” kinda requires it.

Id rather just puss out and say I don’t know.

I know Jokic is a goon and a goblin inside.

I don’t know what Kareem would be if you put a 3 on him and didn’t send help because 4 shooters are waiting.

I think it’s best to just call them all great and leave it there.

This is why realistically trying to compare players from across eras is just dumb. Players only played who they were up against. There’s far too many factors to account for, no one really knows how one player would do in another era/situation or not. You got kids saying Wilt would be a bum if he played today and you have guys saying Jokic wouldn’t crack the starting rotation in the 60’s. It’s all conjecture. At the end of the day we have to say Jokic was in the greatest tier of his era just like Wilt was in his.

[tpols]

A lot of the reason for today's switching is long range everybody has on their shot. If you watch games from the 80s and 90s tons of guys were going under screens and preventing penetration. You go under screens nowadays you're getting J'ed all day from deep.

[Xiao Yao You]

he was abused on defense because playing him heavy minutes requires a throwback, defensive play style that relies on funneling everyone into the big like you’re the Pat Riley heat, but in the playoffs when some team can just put five shooters on the floor and they don’t need to come in the paint to begin with? You have to rebuild your full year strategy from scratch because people who have relied on help defense all year no longer have it because the key to that defense is 28 feet from the basket trying not to give up threes.

it’s incredibly effective in the regular season when teams simply play their default style because when you play someone different every night you can’t be rebuilding the game plan. When you’re gonna play the same team over and over and over they can just create an offense where a ShotBlocker who doesn’t switch as comfortably as somebody like Draymond Green is easily exploitable.

The problem isn’t his ability. The problem is the era he plays in. He is simply not built to win in the playoffs because he demands a play style that is easily countered. You just stick him in the lane and he can defend an entire team when the other team doesn’t care enough to change its whole office to prevent it. in the playoffs when they do care enough, he can’t defend an entire team because when it counts, they’re just gonna drag him to the three-point line and the same defense that worked in the regular season because he was standing in the paint certainly doesn’t work anymore because he isn’t. So he’s running back-and-forth getting shield and giving up layups both.

Guy simply isn’t as useful to winning when it matters as you want to act like he eels because this isn’t 1998. And 30 years ago he could defend everybody even in the playoffs because they will come to him. Guards getting blown by isn’t a problem when you’re in the lane to prevent the layup. That’s what allows people like him with incredibly limited offensive ability to stay on the floor. It always has. But when all five players can shoot somebody like him might have to get the **** off the floor, because he isn’t gonna provide enough on the other end to justify playing when he becomes an exploitable defensive mismatch.

in this era that doesn’t even allow great perimeter defenders to play the kind of defense necessary to stop great scorers on the perimeter? He’s an absolute liability in the playoffs.

we have guys like Jrue Holliday giving up 56 points. Defense is near impossible on a star who has it going. An average to bad defender can score enough to offset it. When somebody like Gobert is rendered average through the other teams game planning, he can’t do shit to be useful but set screens and be in the way.

Just not a guy who would ever be as valuable in the playoffs as he can be for 82 games the other team isn’t that worried about winning. We have all seen it for a long time and we’re going to see it for quite a while longer. Just isn’t built for this when it counts. Not his fault it isn’t 1993 anymore but it isn’t.

His teams haven't been built for long playoff runs. They got beat as the higher seed once and won twice as the lower seed. He doesn't have to be near the basket to be effective on D. He can guard the perimeter too. But if he's pulled away from the rim someone needs to be able to protect the rim which worked fine with Favors and I imagine it will with McDaniel. Favors spotting up for 3 in 1 corner and Rubio in the other didn't work so well nor did having a 6'4 " PF to guard the rim. Team sport. The great Jokic didn't win until they put the right pieces around him just like everyone else that has ever won it all. Gobert has exceeded expectation from the time he was the 27th pick in the draft. Many guys should have been better than him but they haven't been. There's a reason Whiteside looked good to the trolls. He should have been a great player. He's a bum. Same with Cousins and the list goes on. Gobert put in the work and became a lot more than he had any right to be based on his potential :bowdown:

[Kblaze8855]

This is why realistically trying to compare players from across eras is just dumb. Players only played who they were up against. There’s far too many factors to account for, no one really knows how one player would do in another era/situation or not. You got kids saying Wilt would be a bum if he played today and you have guys saying Jokic wouldn’t crack the starting rotation in the 60’s. It’s all conjecture. At the end of the day we have to say Jokic was in the greatest tier of his era just like Wilt was in his.


it really does change too much to even get close to being fair. But when you try to explain it people inevitably think you hate one side or the other. You can find me four or five years ago making topics asking why everybody isn’t talking about Jokic. Asking why we have stopped paying attention to this monster. I have nothing but love for him. I’m one of the old men like Shaq and Barkley, who were cheering when he ****ed up one of the Morris twins who shoved him. That’s what he supposed to do. He is exactly the kind of big man I have loved my entire life, and he is a joy to watch.

But that doesn’t mean I didn’t sit there and watch a 90s 2 guard try to defend him in the post over and over and laugh at how soft the league is around him. You can respect and still acknowledge the reality.

You mentioned wilt….

He had less well trained opposition than say…Giannis. No doubt. Giannis faces a more skilled league in total. That’s true. Also true?

If you let this guy:



https://youtu.be/624az_zp-9g?si=r_5Zog-9bYKJvjmg


Play like Giannis?

He might have averaged 88ppg.

they didn’t let him get away with anything. And when he was too dominant, they kept changing the rules specifically to make him worse. Widen the lane. Add offensive goaltending. They saw a dominant star as something to rig the game against to make it fair for everybody else. Today we see a dominant star and they will go into the rulebook and change it to make them even more dominant.

It’s not disrespectful to acknowledge the era all these guys play in today is rigged in their favor if they are offensive guys. The league told you what it was doing when they did it.

you can be in a league designed for you to prosper, and still be one of the greatest of all time. It just makes it really really hard to do direct comparisons.

I’ll see his best to give everybody their respect and stop all the “He wouldn’t be as good…” or “He’d dominate…” talk it’s just hard to do it in a world so full of hot takes that won’t factor the changes in going both ways.

yes, Wilt would be better if he could just knock people out of the way like modern players. But Giannis will score more if you give him three free throws to make two like they had for a while back in the day. But nobody is gonna talk about that.

The changes are too drastic to even bother going down that path.

But you kinda…have to…or get the “AT” out of GOAT.

[elementally morale]

it really does change too much to even get close to being fair. But when you try to explain it people inevitably think you hate one side or the other. You can find me four or five years ago making topics asking why everybody isn’t talking about Jokic. Asking why we have stopped paying attention to this monster.

I think you and I were the first two non-Nugget fans here recognizing Jokic. Back then it was a sin to say Jokic isn't any worse than Embiid. Truth be told, I expected Joel to become even better than he is now, so I had them 1A and 1B in terms of the future of the NBA. To my surprise, Jokic was the one improving more despite Embiid's clear physical advantage and no worse fundamentals.

Jokic's game 5 years ago was to be recognized only by old-heads, I think. It doesn't catch your eye at first, especially not when you are younger and live in this era.

[90sgoat]

Don't blame Jokic for the fact that american bigs all such at playing back to basket.

Jokic is eating easy in the post because american bigs want to be 3 point shooters.

[Kblaze8855]

His teams haven't been built for long playoff runs. They got beat as the higher seed once and won twice as the lower seed. He doesn't have to be near the basket to be effective on D. He can guard the perimeter too. But if he's pulled away from the rim someone needs to be able to protect the rim which worked fine with Favors and I imagine it will with McDaniel. Favors spotting up for 3 in 1 corner and Rubio in the other didn't work so well nor did having a 6'4 " PF to guard the rim. Team sport. The great Jokic didn't win until they put the right pieces around him just like everyone else that has ever won it all. Gobert has exceeded expectation from the time he was the 27th pick in the draft. Many guys should have been better than him but they haven't been. There's a reason Whiteside looked good to the trolls. He should have been a great player. He's a bum. Same with Cousins and the list goes on. Gobert put in the work and became a lot more than he had any right to be based on his potential :bowdown:


i’m not talking about winning I’m talking about being effective. Jokić is going to lose most of his career but you don’t make him ineffective. Millions of people watched the defensive player of the year pulled from games for defensive purposes in the playoffs. You’re never going to see Jokić and get pulled for his offense.

The man plays a style that is simply not built for games that are well game planned against. And he doesn’t have anything to fall back on.

Hes great in the way pretty much everyone who gets talked about is great. But he’s not…all timer level. He’s another rim protecter who can be run off the floor because he’s extremely limited skills wise.

Punish Jokic on D he gives you 38/22/14. Punish Embiid he gives you 45. Use Rudy’s size against him he’s a stacked washer/dryer combo in the middle of the floor looking crazy.

Hes at the mercy of his scorers being hot to win. He doesn’t have the game to make you win when it counts. He has to be found for a dunk. He had to have the offense buzzing so well around him his exploitable defense doesn’t matter.

Hes a defender who breaks his teams defense when a tactic the entire league is now equipped to employ is used. He’s a Mutombo on the Nuggets, who basically upset the sonics by blocking everything in the lane except today Sam Perkins would take 8 threes a game that series instead of the 3 he took at 43%.

They would just pull Mutombo out of the lane and drive on his poor perimeter defenders.

The book is written. Guys like Rudy have to be led to glory now. They can’t lead you there.

[Kblaze8855]

Don't blame Jokic for the fact that american bigs all such at playing back to basket.

Jokic is eating easy in the post because american bigs want to be 3 point shooters.


Who is blaming him? He’s doing precisely what he should do. I hope he keeps it up. Some team might actually be forced to sign a couple more real bigs.

[NBAGOAT]

A lot of the reason for today's switching is long range everybody has on their shot. If you watch games from the 80s and 90s tons of guys were going under screens and preventing penetration. You go under screens nowadays you're getting J'ed all day from deep.

post up bigs dont get foul calls either outside embiid. Pretty easy finding videos of other teams getting away with murder vs jokic. Guards get more calls today, bigs do not. Teams cant double jokic much even after switching a small guy on him because he's a much better passer than any other star big in history and he has great shooting around him. If he plays in a previous era yea he'll have less spacing and see more doubles but his defense is also much better and he goes to the foul line closer to 7-8 times a game instead of 5-6. Also he does modern stuff like inverted pick and rolls coming off screens offball like larry bird etc that are very hard for most bigs to guard. You cant play 2 bigs vs denver if aaron gordon is shooting well he'll cook a big on the perimeter and guard them fine too while your team cant score with that clunky spacing. If aaron gordon can only cut and score at the rim you'll see more 2 big lineups vs denver like you saw minnesota do. Boston lakers bucks etc can play 2 big lineups

[warriorfan]

it really does change too much to even get close to being fair. But when you try to explain it people inevitably think you hate one side or the other. You can find me four or five years ago making topics asking why everybody isn’t talking about Jokic. Asking why we have stopped paying attention to this monster. I have nothing but love for him. I’m one of the old men like Shaq and Barkley, who were cheering when he ****ed up one of the Maurice twins who shove them. That’s what he supposed to do. He is exactly the kind of big man I have loved my entire life, and he is a joy to watch.

But that doesn’t mean I didn’t sit there and watch a 90s 2 guard try to defend him in the post over and over and laugh at how soft the league is around him. You can respect and still acknowledge the reality.

You mentioned wilt….

He had less well trained opposition than say…Giannis. No doubt. Giannis faces a more skilled league in total. That’s true. Also true?

If you let this guy:



https://youtu.be/624az_zp-9g?si=r_5Zog-9bYKJvjmg


Play like Giannis?

He might have averaged 88ppg.

they didn’t let him get away with anything. And when he was too dominant, they kept changing the rules specifically to make him worse. Widen the lane. Add offensive goaltending. They saw a dominant star as something to read the game against to make it fair for everybody else. Today we see a dominant star and they will go into the rulebook and change it to make them even more dominant.

It’s not disrespectful to acknowledge the era all these guys play in today is rigged in their favor if they are offensive guys. The league told you what it was doing when they did it.

you can be in a league designed for you to prosper, and still be one of the greatest of all time. It just makes it really really hard to do direct comparisons.

I’ll see his best to give everybody their respect and stop all the “He wouldn’t be as good…” or “He’d dominate…” talk it’s just hard to do it in a world so full of hot takes that won’t factor the changes in going both ways.

yes, Wilt would be better if he could just knock people out of the way like modern players. But Giannis will score more if you give him three free throws to make two like they had for a while back in the day. But nobody is gonna talk about that.

The changes are too drastic to even bother going down that path.

But you kinda…have to…or get the “AT” out of GOAT.

I honestly don’t have a dog in the fight when it comes to older vs newer players and who’s better or what league was tougher. The argument goes both ways. You could make arguments about Wilt not being effective today for a number of theoretical reasons or make arguments that Anthony Davis would be out of the league in less then a season with the shit sports medicine and chuck taylor’s of the 60’s. Like almost always the truth tends to lie somewhere in the middle. I think it’s safe to say almost all of the all time great players would be great in any era and if we are talking about absolutes we kinda have to leave it at that for the most part.

Like we have said before these guys are so close together it gets next to impossible to pick them out in a perfect order. That’s why it seems like a Tier system type list makes more sense.

We can’t even make a for sure list on who are the 1-10 players in the league are right now, nevertheless out of every single player who ever played the game of basketball.

[eliteballer]

The way the league is setup right now cater to Jokic (and everyone elses) offensive skills.

[sdot_thadon]

Joker is definitely one of the most skilled bigs ever but I have reservations about the GOAT debate for a guy like him because he's not really going against much great comp at his position. I understand you can only play who's in front of you but he and Embiid face a pretty weak lineup of guys at his position in an alltime sense. And that's not even accounting for switching and posting small guards every other play lol. Alot of it is out of his control but I can't make concessions for anyone we don't make for other guys in all time rankings. One has to wonder would he look so good in a league with a handful of great guys at his same position.

[90sgoat]

Who is blaming him? He’s doing precisely what he should do. I hope he keeps it up. Some team might actually be forced to sign a couple more real bigs.

That's it, because people like to act as if spamming 3s is always the best strategy, but maybe it just is because there haven't been many high level offensive centers?

I think we're probably at the point where even lower level centers could feast on switching defense if they were allowed to.

Someone like Miles Plumlee always looks like an all star against Dallas for instance.

In a lot of cases, it's just because teams have this weird taboo against feeding the big, but if you're a decent big and you have a guard on you, you should get the ball at all times. Maybe coaches are finding the guts to do this with watching Jokic dominate.

I'm guessing Pop will be the next to embrace inside-out with Wemby.

[Kblaze8855]

Wemby is too much of an outlier. He’s almost inside even when he’s outside. Jokic has reasonable dimensions others can hope to follow.

[90sgoat]

I'd like to have seen Jokic match up with Shaq.

Jokic is a heavy guy and Shaq struggled with heavy centers.

If Bryan Reeves could hold his own against Shaq, then Jokic could probably too.

I think Jokic might look even better on defense in the 80s and 90s.

[Walk on Water]

But there is no objective GOAT besides Lebron. And he’s not even the GOAT for his longevity. It’s because he dominated with an impact that is unsurpassed, and he proved it’s who he was and not a fluke.

TMac had a year where he scored 32 on like 46%. That was a single season anomaly, and those things happen. But THAT level wasnt who he was. The next season he scored 28 on 42%. He was a good player but that one epic season wasnt who he was.

Jokic has done what he’s doing long enough to prove this is who he is. So I can now compare this level he’s on to the level other great players showed they actually were. Not one peak season vs one peak season, or a 20 year career vs a 20 year career. But… “who were they really?”

Bron, Wilt, MJ, Hakeem, whoever. His level of impact on the court is not clearly surpassed by any of them. He’s as good a player purely in terms of positive contributions to a basketball result, as anyone.

Thats my measure of these things. Other people can use other criteria I guess, altho I fail to see the logic in much of it.


Lol he’s old news. Jokic has better stats than Lebron. LeWHO?

[Xiao Yao You]

I'd like to have seen Jokic match up with Shaq.

Jokic is a heavy guy and Shaq struggled with heavy centers.

If Bryan Reeves could hold his own against Shaq, then Jokic could probably too.

I think Jokic might look even better on defense in the 80s and 90s.

We saw it. His name was Sabonis

[Kblaze8855]

I'd like to have seen Jokic match up with Shaq.

Jokic is a heavy guy and Shaq struggled with heavy centers.

If Bryan Reeves could hold his own against Shaq, then Jokic could probably too.

I think Jokic might look even better on defense in the 80s and 90s.

Jokic would have been abused by Shaq. And he would abuse him back. Neither one of them is likely to guard the other worth a damn. Jokic would try harder but be just as futile. The difference in the quickness would be jarring, and I suspect Shaq would be the only player Jokic in his current form had played who was more physical than him. But Shaq isn’t gonna want to step out which would get him lit up. And Jokic could score on him inside as well. Be a great matchup with nobody being close to stopped.

[FultzNationRISE]

Joker is definitely one of the most skilled bigs ever but I have reservations about the GOAT debate for a guy like him because he's not really going against much great comp at his position. I understand you can only play who's in front of you but he and Embiid face a pretty weak lineup of guys at his position in an alltime sense. And that's not even accounting for switching and posting small guards every other play lol. Alot of it is out of his control but I can't make concessions for anyone we don't make for other guys in all time rankings. One has to wonder would he look so good in a league with a handful of great guys at his same position.

I dont think this is true defensively.

Teams dont run post offense thru bigs as much now because it’s not considered as effective. But guys like AD, Toody, Embiid, Dray, Bam, Giannis are supposed to be all time great man on man paint defenders. I dont think having to shove thru that gauntlet every season is any cake walk.

Besides what would he fail to do against guys in other areas? He’s got size and he’s not afraid to bang down low. He has insane touch, he shoots dumb percentages around the rim. He’s probably the greatest passer ever. He’s a monster rebounder in this era so he could certainly hold his own against whoever.

Theres nothing he cant do offensively. If you calculate how many other guys you could say that about, sure youd get a few other all time greats but then none of them have his combined degree of size, efficiency, and passing.

He’s literally like… the ultimate basketball player. I dont see how you could make an argument based on specific basketball qualities that anyone is better. Im not saying there arent a few other guys you could say “it’s basically even and I prefer this other guy by a hair.”

But if you flat out say “hes not at MJ or Kareem’s all time level” youre going to have a very tough time actually defending that by making articulating, rational arguments.

[Xiao Yao You]

I dont think this is true defensively.

Teams dont run post offense thru bigs as much now because itÂ’s not considered as effective. But guys like AD, Toody, Embiid, Dray, Bam, Giannis are supposed to be all time great man on man paint defenders. I dont think having to shove thru that gauntlet every season is any cake walk.

Besides what would he fail to do against guys in other areas? HeÂ’s got size and heÂ’s not afraid to bang down low. He has insane touch, he shoots dumb percentages around the rim. HeÂ’s probably the greatest passer ever. HeÂ’s a monster rebounder in this era so he could certainly hold his own against whoever.

Theres nothing he cant do offensively. If you calculate how many other guys you could say that about, sure youd get a few other all time greats but then none of them have his combined degree of size, efficiency, and passing.

He’s literally like… the ultimate basketball player. I dont see how you could make an argument based on specific basketball qualities that anyone is better. Im not saying there arent a few other guys you could say “it’s basically even and I prefer this other guy by a hair.”

But if you flat out say “hes not at MJ or Kareem’s all time level” youre going to have a very tough time actually defending that by making articulating, rational arguments.

Gobert has a winning record against Jokic despite being the worst offensive player ever :roll:

[FultzNationRISE]

This thread isnt even about me stanning Jokic. I mean I like the guy but I dont have any personal connection to him.

It’s about how people think. Because I can see clear as day how crazy all time good this guy is. And I feel like most people just dont realize it because theyre waiting on these arbitrary conventional indicators like… “when he gets to three titles.” And then the light bulb in their head will automatically switch from “deny” to “accept.”

It’s a very mechanical way to analyze things. It’s just weird to know thats how so many approach the cognitive process.

[Kblaze8855]

He’s literally like… the ultimate basketball player. I dont see how you could make an argument based on specific basketball qualities that anyone is better. Im not saying there arent a few other guys you could say “it’s basically even and I prefer this other guy by a hair.”

But if you flat out say “hes not at MJ or Kareem’s all time level” youre going to have a very tough time actually defending that by making articulating, rational arguments.



Not really. The argument is easy you just won’t agree with it. Long as there are all time elite offensive players who are also all timers on defense there will be an argument. There are about….4ish of those guys. He will do aspects of offense better than some…they will have aspects better…and be better at multiple aspects of defense you and most will simply lump together as “defense” instead of itemizing it as you would offense to provide a longer list. And that argument is perfectly reasonable. You not agreeing doesn’t mean it’s an irrational way to judge basketball players.

[warriorfan]

Not really. The argument is easy you just won’t agree with it. Long as there are all time elite offensive players who are also all timers on defense there will be an argument. There are about….4ish of those guys. He will do aspects of offense better than some…they will have aspects better…and be better at multiple aspects of defense you and most will simply lump together as “defense” instead of itemizing it as you would offense to provide a longer list. And that argument is perfectly reasonable. You not agreeing doesn’t mean it’s an irrational way to judge basketball players.

Well the scary thing about Jokic he isn’t a “2 way player” but at the same time his defense isn’t terrible. It’s not like a Steve Nash situation out there. He’s not a negative on defense. On a scale of -10 to 10 I would say he’s a -1 to 3 depending on the situation. The thing is his offensive lift is so huge that his impact is actually greater than a lot of “2 way players”.

You could argue that Jokic wouldn’t have as many scorers around him if he played back in kareem’s day or whatever and his offensive lift would t be as great. Goes back to the whole whst if type thing again.

But I think Jokic in general gets seen as a guy who’s a negative on defense like Steve Nash when that just isn’t true. His defense sucks compared to his offense but his offense is so good, that still ain’t too bad.

[Kblaze8855]

I don’t disagree. I have seen him be straight clowned on some switches like when Colin Sexton was blowing by him pretending to rev up first and Jokic got in his feelings and leveled him down the court. But that’s an era specific thing. He wouldn’t be switched onto a sexton at 30 feet 25 years ago.

The era thing gives and takes. His defensive issues are largely era specific. If he just had to guard another post up big all the time he’d look better. And he doesn’t look terrible on defense now.

He’s the type to get clowned for D because he’s the star we pay attention to. None of the big stars people list as worst in the league types ever really are. They just get so much more attention for it.

Even Steve Nash. He was bad…really bad when a team wanted to pick on him…but he was no worse than aging Sam Cassell who didn’t get half the talk about it.

[Kblaze8855]

This here



https://youtu.be/jiJOINuH_Ug?si=qcu1n7dcaGgrOQAv



He is helpless and it’s ugly. And he clearly got on his feelings about it since this was right after:



https://youtu.be/30NxeNg7dGY?si=gzUfjIRCNCD3FbvG


It’s dirty but…it’s also exactly how it would be handled by a lot of old school bigs.

He plays like it’s 1988 but with a 2023 skill set.

A lot of the bigs from 88 and before would never be put in that position. And if they were most would get blown by as well.

The few who wouldn’t though? Who could also go crazy on offense and win it all?

Those guys are rare. But they existed. And it’s hard to ignore them as total players.

[tpols]

This thread isnt even about me stanning Jokic. I mean I like the guy but I dont have any personal connection to him.

It’s about how people think. Because I can see clear as day how crazy all time good this guy is. And I feel like most people just dont realize it because theyre waiting on these arbitrary conventional indicators like… “when he gets to three titles.” And then the light bulb in their head will automatically switch from “deny” to “accept.”

It’s a very mechanical way to analyze things. It’s just weird to know thats how so many approach the cognitive process.

Everybody has been saying he's a 7 foot Larry Bird for a while now. They won the championship like 5 months ago. It isn't really new news.

[Xiao Yao You]

This here



https://youtu.be/jiJOINuH_Ug?si=qcu1n7dcaGgrOQAv



He is helpless and it’s ugly. And he clearly got on his feelings about it since this was right after:



https://youtu.be/30NxeNg7dGY?si=gzUfjIRCNCD3FbvG


It’s dirty but…it’s also exactly how it would be handled by a lot of old school bigs.

He plays like it’s 1988 but with a 2023 skill set.

A lot of the bigs from 88 and before would never be put in that position. And if they were most would get blown by as well.

The few who wouldn’t though? Who could also go crazy on offense and win it all?

Those guys are rare. But they existed. And it’s hard to ignore them as total players.

Sexton gets to rim on anyone he wants to. I thought Jokic did fine on defense in that game

[Kblaze8855]

Everybody has been saying he's a 7 foot Larry Bird for a while now. They won the championship like 5 months ago. It isn't really new news.

I think what he’s doing is an updated version of what I was talking about on here about 20 years ago. I made a topic in early 02/03 about Kobe and probably had TMAC in there somewhere as well. We made one of those greatest players of all time lists and I think Kobe was 20 something or probably even lower than that. Probably lower because I think when we did it in like 2007 he might have been around 24(I remember an argument over him vs Stockton). But whatever it was, caused me to Ask why is it in 20 years we are going to compare 2003 Kobe to lake 1985 bird but if we do it now it’s considered disrespectful.

And remember this is like 10 years after Larry Bird retired. Larry Bird was to the early ISH with Jason Kidd is now. a retired player but recent enough that everybody knows his game(despite recent people claiming Jason Kidd took a lot of shots).

Point is Larry was heavily respected and well-known so people didn’t take what I was saying that well. My point then as now was that we hesitate to give people all time status when it’s staring us right in the face. We’re waiting for something to happen in the future, that will make us acknowledge a player was already what he appears to be in the present.

And it’s still going on today. I don’t suspect they will ever stop. Dirk got a whooooole lot better in 2005 after 2011 and that’s just the world we have.

[plowking]

We've seen enough of Jokic to make an assessment I guess. To me - I've never seen anyone make offense easier for their teammates.

They as a team in general run the most organic style of offense I've ever seen. Something works? Keep going to it. Someone is open, they are getting it. Move off the ball and you'll get rewarded.

They seem to make the right play a lot. More than any team I've seen and it starts with Jokic and how he reads and opens the game up.

This doesn't mean you'll win every game, but on average you'll be put in a great position to win every time.


EDIT: I think they need more pieces though. They lost some important guys. Someone like John Collins would have been great for them. Chet on Denver would ensure they are finals contenders for the next 5 years. He is an ideal player for their system.

[Xiao Yao You]

We've seen enough of Jokic to make an assessment I guess. To me - I've never seen anyone make offense easier for their teammates.

They as a team in general run the most organic style of offense I've ever seen. Something works? Keep going to it. Someone is open, they are getting it. Move off the ball and you'll get rewarded.

They seem to make the right play a lot. More than any team I've seen and it starts with Jokic and how he reads and opens the game up.

This doesn't mean you'll win every game, but on average you'll be put in a great position to win every time.


EDIT: I think they need more pieces though. They lost some important guys. Someone like John Collins would have been great for them. Chet on Denver would ensure they are finals contenders for the next 5 years. He is an ideal player for their system.

I'm sure Collins is available if the price is right. Might have to take The Bum in the deal to make it work

[elementally morale]

If it's 30 years ago, Jokic wouldn't be less efficient. His defense would seem better against more stationary bigs. He would probably face the most difficulty vs. Hakeem. Jpkic would have less assists but probably more points as he would be fed in the paint a lot more. He could bang down low but also be a threat from the outside. With his shooting touch from basically everywhere on the court I don't see other centers stopping him. We'll never know for sure but I see no difficulty with him adjusting to another playing style.

[FultzNationRISE]

Not really. The argument is easy you just won’t agree with it. Long as there are all time elite offensive players who are also all timers on defense there will be an argument. There are about….4ish of those guys. He will do aspects of offense better than some…they will have aspects better…and be better at multiple aspects of defense you and most will simply lump together as “defense” instead of itemizing it as you would offense to provide a longer list. And that argument is perfectly reasonable. You not agreeing doesn’t mean it’s an irrational way to judge basketball players.


I will if it makes sense.

What does anyone else do better than him offensively? I mean in general meaningful ways, not specific things like MJ can spin three times in the air before a fadeaway. Thats cool but the impact is marginal.

Jokic has touch around the rim as good as Kareem. He can shoot from outside on Larry Bird percentages. He plays bully ball nearly as well as Shaq. Rebounds like DRob. He’s the greatest passing big ever. He can run a fast break like Magic despite being a true 7’0 and probably the heaviest guy in the league.

He does every single important thing on offense as well as any of the other greats, most of whom only do a couple things at an elite level.

He can basically mimick all the best players in history in every way that his size allows.

But if theres an argument for what other guys do better, Im willing to hear it.

[warriorfan]

I will if it makes sense.

What does anyone else do better than him offensively? I mean in general meaningful ways, not specific things like MJ can spin three times in the air before a fadeaway. Thats cool but the impact is marginal.

Jokic has touch around the rim as good as Kareem. He can shoot from outside on Larry Bird percentages. He plays bully ball nearly as well as Shaq. Rebounds like DRob. He’s the greatest passing big ever. He can run a fast break like Magic despite being a true 7’0 and probably the heaviest guy in the league.

He does every single important thing on offense as well as any of the other greats, most of whom only do a couple things at an elite level.

He can basically mimick all the best players in history in every way that his size allows.

But if theres an argument for what other guys do better, Im willing to hear it.

I know this post has a lot of hyperbole in it, and I am not a Jokic detractor, when you say he has the same touch as kareem that isn’t false but at the same time he wasn’t as a dominant as a go to scorer. That being said kareem obviously doesn’t have the playmaking ability Jokic has.

From a strictly offensive standpoint it’s hard to argue Kareem over Jokic at this point it seems. Unless you value go to scoring extremely high. (higher then it already is as it’s obviously extremely important)

[elementally morale]

I know this post has a lot of hyperbole in it, and I am not a Jokic detractor, when you say he has the same touch as kareem that isn’t false but at the same time he wasn’t as a dominant as a go to scorer. That being said kareem obviously doesn’t have the playmaking ability Jokic has.

From a strictly offensive standpoint it’s hard to argue Kareem over Jokic at this point it seems. Unless you value go to scoring extremely high. (higher then it already is as it’s obviously extremely important)

If Jokic wanted to score 'only' his numbers would skyrocket. He is doing what he is doing on 64-65% FG and 40% from 3. If he takes 10 more shots and a couple of free throws more he is averaging 40+. It's a good thing he isn't. But he could while still being respectably efficient. He is super efficient now and by season's end we may see a 30 ppg triple double season the way things are going (Jokic is a slow starter and becomes better as the season progresses).

[plowking]

I know this post has a lot of hyperbole in it, and I am not a Jokic detractor, when you say he has the same touch as kareem that isn’t false but at the same time he wasn’t as a dominant as a go to scorer. That being said kareem obviously doesn’t have the playmaking ability Jokic has.

From a strictly offensive standpoint it’s hard to argue Kareem over Jokic at this point it seems. Unless you value go to scoring extremely high. (higher then it already is as it’s obviously extremely important)

There is more to scoring than just per 36 minute stuff, but Jokic holds up quite well to Kareem in that regard historically. He is a guy you can feed and get easy points from when the offense goes to shit, and we've seen that the last few playoffs.
Is he as prolific? No, but it isn't the way his game is setup. Nuggets would be worse because of it.

But his playoff production scoring wise is GOAT level, and he has shown he can give you 40 or 50 in the playoffs.

[sdot_thadon]

I dont think this is true defensively.

Teams dont run post offense thru bigs as much now because it’s not considered as effective. But guys like AD, Toody, Embiid, Dray, Bam, Giannis are supposed to be all time great man on man paint defenders. I dont think having to shove thru that gauntlet every season is any cake walk.

Besides what would he fail to do against guys in other areas? He’s got size and he’s not afraid to bang down low. He has insane touch, he shoots dumb percentages around the rim. He’s probably the greatest passer ever. He’s a monster rebounder in this era so he could certainly hold his own against whoever.

Theres nothing he cant do offensively. If you calculate how many other guys you could say that about, sure youd get a few other all time greats but then none of them have his combined degree of size, efficiency, and passing.

He’s literally like… the ultimate basketball player. I dont see how you could make an argument based on specific basketball qualities that anyone is better. Im not saying there arent a few other guys you could say “it’s basically even and I prefer this other guy by a hair.”

But if you flat out say “hes not at MJ or Kareem’s all time level” youre going to have a very tough time actually defending that by making articulating, rational arguments.
That's kinda my point, all those guys listed aren't even Centers, a guy like AD vehemently denies being a Center. Remember how the washed up left overs of Dwight Howard were able to trouble him in a 7 game series in 2020? I look at stuff like that, I hate that it's such a small sample size but we don't really have much else to go from. So my thing is does his level of greatness hold up when he's facing other big dogs? Most of the other guys we call top 10 or what not have the wars with other greats to answer these questions.

[warriorfan]

If Jokic wanted to score 'only' his numbers would skyrocket. He is doing what he is doing on 64-65% FG and 40% from 3. If he takes 10 more shots and a couple of free throws more he is averaging 40+. It's a good thing he isn't. But he could while still being respectably efficient. He is super efficient now and by season's end we may see a 30 ppg triple double season the way things are going (Jokic is a slow starter and becomes better as the season progresses).


There is more to scoring than just per 36 minute stuff, but Jokic holds up quite well to Kareem in that regard historically. He is a guy you can feed and get easy points from when the offense goes to shit, and we've seen that the last few playoffs.
Is he as prolific? No, but it isn't the way his game is setup. Nuggets would be worse because of it.

But his playoff production scoring wise is GOAT level, and he has shown he can give you 40 or 50 in the playoffs.

I fully agree he can score more if he wanted too. In my opinion Kareem is and still would be a better go to scorer even if Jokic focused more on scoring. Like I said before I still believe Jokic is a better total offensive player than Kareem.

[90sgoat]

I see Jokic's scoring more along Duncan than Shaq.

Duncan could also score 30 a game for a playoff series if needed, but ideally he won't and it's the same with Jokic.

People will see that as a slight, but Duncan was a very efficient and versatile scorer too.

[Kblaze8855]

I will if it makes sense.


Long as you decide what basketball arguments are valid you don’t have to listen to any of them.

As I told you the argument can be made you just won’t agree. Which has nothing to do with it being true or not.

[tontoz]

I see Jokic's scoring more along Duncan than Shaq.

Duncan could also score 30 a game for a playoff series if needed, but ideally he won't and it's the same with Jokic.

People will see that as a slight, but Duncan was a very efficient and versatile scorer too.



Jokic has averaged 30 ppg over the last 3 years in the playoffs. He is a far more skilled scorer than Duncan. It's not close.

Of course Duncan was a far better defender.

I think these goat arguments are lame anyway. In this case it makes even less sense because jokic is still in his 20s. Some guys have their peak years in their early 30s while others are out of the league at that age.

I would say that jokic is on a trajectory to be seen as a top 10 player. That is as far as I will go and I have been a fan of his for years, before he won his first MVP.

[Kblaze8855]

Jokic has averaged 30 ppg over the last 3 years in the playoffs. He is a far more skilled scorer than Duncan. It's not close.





I don’t feel like the first part of that has as much to do with the second as you suggest. Jokic has taken more shots in the playoffs than Duncan ever did the last 3 years in a row and takes those shots in less minutes. Duncan led a team to a title playing 43 minutes a game taking 16.6 shots. Then did it again playing 43 minutes taking 17. Comparing that to playing 34.5 minutes taking 23 shots? Or even 40/21.

Would you disagree that if Duncan got 4 more “4 down” playcalls and shot 4 more times he might make 2 more and 03 would be closer 30/15/5 instead of 25?

Im not saying it matters…but I’m saying I don’t love comparing Duncan to most anyone numbers wise when he was in his absolute prime and not really pushing it as a scorer.

You can feel Jokic is better at scoring. I don’t care about that. Do you think it’s fair to say Duncan wasn’t really…going for that level of scoring in the playoffs?

He also had a “Give him the ball and get out of the way” gear that he showed quite often. He had down games but he was in an era that was hard to avoid. Ben and Sheed on a team routinely keeping teams below 70 both by D and a slow pace isn’t something we see a lot of these days.

I feel like prime Tim in a 115ppg league guarded on a lot of switches by people who had no business…might scrape 30 if his team wanted.

Do you disagree?

[warriorfan]

I don’t feel like the first part of that has as much to do with the second as you suggest. Jokic has taken more shots in the playoffs than Duncan ever did the last 3 years in a row and takes those shots in less minutes. Duncan led a team to a title playing 43 minutes a game taking 16.6 shots. Then did it again playing 43 minutes taking 17. Comparing that to playing 34.5 minutes taking 23 shots? Or even 40/21.

Would you disagree that if Duncan got 4 more “4 down” playcalls and shot 4 more times he might make 2 more and 03 would be closer 30/15/5 instead of 25?

Im not saying it matters…but I’m saying I don’t love comparing Duncan to most anyone numbers wise when he was in his absolute prime and not really pushing it as a scorer.

You can feel Jokic is better at scoring. I don’t care about that. Do you think it’s fair to say Duncan wasn’t really…going for that level of scoring in the playoffs?

He also had a “Give him the ball and get out of the way” gear that he showed quite often. He had down games but he was in an era that was hard to avoid. Ben and Sheed on a team routinely keeping teams below 70 both by D and a slow pace isn’t something we see a lot of these days.

I feel like prime Tim in a 115ppg league guarded on a lot of switches by people who had no business…might scrape 30 if his team wanted.

Do you disagree?

I haven’t thought too much about it but off the top of my head eye test tells me Jokic is more talented as a scorer.

[elementally morale]

Duncan played 'the right way' and I'm sure he could've scored more if he wanted to. The same is true for Jokic. However, playmaking ability is a big difference. As is defense... so at this point I'd call it a wash. Which, btw, is phenomenal news for Jokic. Duncan makes most people's top10 list. Another thing that is personal preference is that I simply enjoy watching Jokic more. (And no, I never found Duncan boring.)

[tontoz]

Duncan simply didn't have the scoring arsenal that jokic does. His shot was a line drive which is why he relied so heavily on bank shots. He just wasn't a good shooter and was a poor foul shooter. His best scoring was done in the low post and even there he wasn't as good as jokic.

But Duncan was an elite defender while I would say jokic is roughly average, and the only reason I would rank him that high is because he is a great defensive rebounder.

Just very different players.

[FultzNationRISE]

Duncan simply didn't have the scoring arsenal that jokic does. His shot was a line drive which is why he relied so heavily on bank shots. He just wasn't a good shooter and was a poor foul shooter. His best scoring was done in the low post and even there he wasn't as good as jokic.

But Duncan was an elite defender while I would say jokic is roughly average, and the only reason I would rank him that high is because he is a great defensive rebounder.

Just very different players.

He didnt then altho if he were brought up in this era he may well have. In fact Duncan's a player who's likely to have been very comparable to Joker if he played now.

We know he can hit clutch threes cuz he did it against the Suns at the buzzer in the playoffs one year :lol

Another clutch shot was a very Jokic-esque top of the key fadeaway runner over Shaq at the end of a game with the Spurs down 1 in a crucial 2-2 series vs the Lakers. It was a huge clutch shot, probably would be better remembered... if it hadn't left .04 seconds on the clock :lol

But I agree overall Duncan was just a bit more clunky than Joker, altho obviously still very effective.

And again to my point, if someone said they believe Duncan is the greatest ever, just as impactful as Russell or MJ or Magic or Bird... it's not "wrong." Duncan doesnt HAVE to go in the 5-10 range just because every online publication puts him there. If someone thinks he's the GOAT... that's a valid opinion for an individual to have. And so it is with Jokic.

Altho obviously Lebron is the real GOAT.

[tontoz]

For the record I am not saying that jokic is better than Duncan. Duncan was a good scorer and an elite defender, one of the best ever, not to mention he was very durable. He has 5 rings for a reason.

[Kblaze8855]

As I said if you think Jokic is the better scorer I don’t care about that. I just don’t see points scored as the way to judge Tim as a scorer as it seemed you wanted to do. He took 12 shots a game in the wcf on the way to his first ring. Jokic took 20. Jokic took exactly the same shots per 36 in 2022 as Allen Iverson did when he won his first scoring title. Now I’m not saying he’s wrong to do it at the rate he does. I’m also not saying he’s the only one. Giannis for example has a higher peak shots per minute than Allen Iverson. It just doesn’t feeeeeel like it. But he didn’t score 30 a game on 30 minutes by not getting all the shots. Todays stars are some ****ing gunners for their minutes.

Teams decided to maximize their stars contribution when it became about analytics. If good things happen when the star has the ball nobody else needs it. We saw it with Harden and see it with Luka. Teams ride the star.

If you are gonna just force feed Duncan the ball to take shots at or near an Iverson rate in a small ball league…

I just think he’d have considerably better numbers.

Not that the numbers would be the deciding factor in this question. But I think they would be used against him as they can be now.

Teams just didn’t wanna play that way.

[tontoz]

Force feeding Duncan wouldnt work because of his limited options. Even being fairly conservative with his attempts he didn't shoot that well. The best he ever did was 55% on 2s.

Compare that to Barkley who had 5 straight seasons shooting over 60% on 2s. Barkley, like jokic, could combine high volume and high efficiency. Duncan never did, not even for one season.

Duncan wasn't shooting floaters, one legged jumpers, etc that jokic does routinely. The defenders don't know what's coming which makes him so tough to guard. Duncan was much more predictable.

[Kblaze8855]

Neither Barkley nor Duncan ever shot high-volume. They both only have one season even taking 18 shots and they averaged 25.5 and 25.6 a game doing it. Charles got fouled a lot but he wasn’t just trying to score all game. You know back then stars didn’t mostly play that way. A few did. Jordan. Nique. Bernard King.

Barkley was all nba taking 13.8 shots a game in more than 40 minutes. That’s incredibly low volume for a scorer of his caliber. Charles had 4 all star seasons shooting less per minutes than Ben Simmons did in 2018. Now that number is obviously skewed by times he got fouled. But fact is is getting a less than 14 shots a game in more than 40 minutes is pretty ridiculous by today’s standards.

Old school stars did not generally play the way they ask even the some guys we call unselfish now do.

A lot of them would score more if a coach insisted as they do now. And Duncan is one of them. I don’t know what you think happens force feeding Tim Duncan the ball to attack vs these small lineups. You say it won’t work…but I don’t know what you think that means.

Hes gonna be stifled by…who? What is gonna prevent him from scoring more? Being “predictable”? You think that’s why he’d play 44 minutes and take 14 shots? Being “predictable”?

The three leading scorers in history are among the most predictable in history. In fact, I will say all three or more predictable than Duncan. Though Kareem had a vastly wider repertoire then he gets credit for.

Being a master at what you do might make you predictable but it doesn’t mean people can just shut it down. At least two of his championships involved heavy doses of everybody just getting the **** out of the way.

Hes not gonna be force fed the ball today and not score. He scored when he was forced the ball in a league designed to prevent it instead of encourage it.

[Kblaze8855]

And I feel like your memory is failing you on some of this stuff. How do you not remember Tim Duncan hitting runners and floaters? He wasn’t out there taking 16 banks a game. Not that I’d have minded. Beautiful shot.

[tontoz]

Nice dodge but doesn't change the fact that Duncan didn't shoot that well even with "limited" attempts. Barkley proved that he could score with high efficiency averaging 25 pog. Duncan never did.

There is no reason to believe duncan would suddenly shoot better taking more shots that makes no sense.

Btw the correct metric is shots per 100 possessions if you really want to compare players across eras since pace is a lot different now.


If a guy goes from taking 15 shots to 20+, those extra shots would typically be harder to make.

Of course there are guys who have unstoppable moves that were predictable. Duncan wasn't one of them. His offense was line drive jumpers and hooks in the lane. They were effective moves but not exactly dominant, and he had to be set up for his low post hooks.

[tontoz]

And I feel like your memory is failing you on some of this stuff. How do you not remember Tim Duncan hitting runners and floaters? He wasn’t out there taking 16 banks a game. Not that I’d have minded. Beautiful shot.


Oh please just because a guy makes a runner once in awhile doesn't mean he was actually good at them. Duncan didn't take those shots very often. He was primarily a back to the basket scorer inside

[Xiao Yao You]

Oh please just because a guy makes a runner once in awhile doesn't mean he was actually good at them. Duncan didn't take those shots very often. He was primarily a back to the basket scorer inside

faced up plenty

[tontoz]

faced up plenty

Sure but he would catch the ball in the post with his back to the basket initially. Then he would face up at times and make a move or shoot.Let's not pretend that Duncan was getting the ball on the perimeter and attacking from there :oldlol:

[Kblaze8855]

There’s no dodge you’re just saying things that aren’t true factually and it’s making me feel like your memory is fuzzy on some things. We’re both old enough to have watched Barkley a lot. He was never some kind of volume shooter. He scored when he did get the ball and he would often get fouled, but he wasn’t some kind of gunning volume scorer. He scored when he did get the ball and he would often get fouled, but he wasn’t some kind of gunning volume scorer. A typical Barkley game? He probably goes like 8 or 9 of 15 or 16 playing 40 minutes. He wasn’t forced the ball like modern stars and Duncan certainly wasn’t either.

It just feels like you are hazy on Duncan too. He was always facing up. He didn’t shoot all those bank shots fading in the post. It feels like we aren’t even talking about the same person.

You wanna believe Duncan was taking 15 shots a game when he was just 28 and letting others grow in their roles because he wasn’t capable of more and would somehow fall apart given the ball more…go ahead. I’ll just say it feels like you and I experienced that whole 12-15 years very differently.

[tontoz]

There’s no dodge you’re just saying things that aren’t true factually and it’s making me feel like your memory is fuzzy on some things. We’re both old enough to have watched Barkley a lot. He was never some kind of volume shooter. And it feels like you are hazy on Duncan too. He was always facing up. He didn’t shoot all those bank shots fading in the post. It feels like we aren’t even talking about the same person.

You wanna believe Duncan was taking 15 shots a game when he was just 28 and letting others grow in their roles because he wasn’t capable of more and would somehow fall apart given the ball more…go ahead. I’ll just say it feels like you and I experienced that whole 12-15 years very differently.


Barkley averaged 28 ppg for a season :oldlol: which was 4th in the league and had 5 seasons averaging over 25. I think you are the one with the bad memory.

Sure Duncan faced up a lot, after catching the ball with his back to the basket. A big part of post play is facing up after the catch. But it was rare for him to even touch the ball more than 20 feet from the basket

[Im Still Ballin]

I do remember Duncan facing up and playing from the elbows at times. Kind of like Chris Bosh, although he wasn't nearly as good at shooting from that distance. Tim was pretty good at driving from that area and drawing fouls. He drew a lot of fouls in his prime.

But I'm not sure as to how frequently he executed those plays. Or how many elbow touches he got. But it was part of his arsenal. Thinking Basketball covered it in his greatest peaks video on Tim Duncan.

[tontoz]

Duncan has 13 seasons taking at least 23 shots per 100 possessions. Jokic has 3.

[Kblaze8855]

He averaged 28 a game on 16 shots playing 40 minutes a game.

Point out to me the other players who took 16 shots a game in 40 minutes you consider volume shooters.

as a Peak scoring season from one of the greatest players of all time? Nah.

16 shots in 40 minutes is pretty restrained. Stars like that are the type known for their unselfishness. That’s a Reggie millet kinda line. Making a high number doesn’t mean he was just gunning away.

[Im Still Ballin]

Go to 13:06 for the breakdown of Duncan's faceup perimeter game. His jump shooting wasn't great but he had a tight handle and was coordinated enough to be a strong slashing threat.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhIS4wlLXk8&ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball

[tontoz]

He averaged 28 a game on 16 shots playing 40 minutes a game.

Point out to me the other players who took 16 shots a game in 40 minutes you consider volume shooters.

as a Peak scoring season from one of the greatest players of all time? Nah.

16 shots in 40 minutes is pretty restrained. Stars like that are the type known for their unselfishness. That’s a Reggie millet kinda line. Making a high number doesn’t mean he was just gunning away.


So what is your arbitrary cutoff for "a lot" of shots?

The fact is that Barkley could average 25+ ppg while shooting over 60% in 2s which is elite. Duncan never sniffed that because he wasn't as good a scorer as Barkley.

[tontoz]

Go to 13:06 for the breakdown of Duncan's faceup perimeter game. His jump shooting wasn't great but he had a tight handle and was coordinated enough to be a strong slashing threat.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhIS4wlLXk8&ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball


I know Duncan game . I know his two signature moves were his bank shot and his hook. Sometimes he would fake a guy off his feet and then go in for a slam.

He wasn't catching the ball at the 3 pt line and working from there. He tried to get the initial catch within the range of his jumper.

[Kblaze8855]

Duncan has 13 seasons taking at least 23 shots per 100 possessions. Jokic has 3.

Having been a big minutes player for 6 years…kinda feels like a weird way to compare. What you posted was:



Jokic has averaged 30 ppg over the last 3 years in the playoffs.




Considering he took 21-23 a game all 3 years and Tim peaked at 20.1 for 28 a game…..just kinda…feels relevant.

You wanna make it a whole other thing now go ahead. You started talking PPG and ignored the rest.

He just shoots more than Tim. He’s supposed to score more even if he weren’t in a league of 6’8” stretch bigs on 115ppg teams. You wanna just go ppg the fact he shoots a lot less in the time in question seems relevant.

[RRR3]

Having been a big minutes player for 6 years…kinda feels like a weird way to compare. What you posted was:




Considering he took 21-23 a game all 3 years and Tim peaked at 20.1 for 28 a game…..just kinda…feels relevant.

You wanna make it a whole other thing now go ahead. You started talking PPG and ignored the rest.

He just shoots more than Tim. He’s supposed to score more even if he weren’t in a league of 6’8” stretch bigs on 115ppg teams. You wanna just go ppg the fact he shoots a lot less in the time in question seems relevant.
Duncan’s efficiency wasn’t close to Jokic’s. Even adjusted for era.

[Xiao Yao You]

So what is your arbitrary cutoff for "a lot" of shots?

The fact is that Barkley could average 25+ ppg while shooting over 60% in 2s which is elite. Duncan never sniffed that because he wasn't as good a scorer as Barkley.

a lot of shots depends on rather you can shoot or not. See Jason Kidd

[Kblaze8855]

So what is your arbitrary cutoff for "a lot" of shots?

The fact is that Barkley could average 25+ ppg while shooting over 60% in 2s which is elite. Duncan never sniffed that because he wasn't as good a scorer as Barkley.


I don’t know what the number is I’m just pretty sure nobody qualifies if they have 6 star level seasons of 13 to 15 shots a night playing big minutes. He was taking less shots in 40 minutes than Magic Johnson was taking in 36. He was a 23/15/5 superstar at the time.

If Magic Johnson takes more shots than you in less minutes I’m not gonna call you a high volume guy. Let’s call that the cutoff.

If anything I thought he needed to shoot more at times though I obviously did not have the information I have now.

You and I both know stars for the most part played a more team game than todays fans would be used to seeing.

[tontoz]

Having been a big minutes player for 6 years…kinda feels like a weird way to compare. What you posted was:




Considering he took 21-23 a game all 3 years and Tim peaked at 20.1 for 28 a game…..just kinda…feels relevant.

You wanna make it a whole other thing now go ahead. You started talking PPG and ignored the rest.

He just shoots more than Tim. He’s supposed to score more even if he weren’t in a league of 6’8” stretch bigs on 115ppg teams. You wanna just go ppg the fact he shoots a lot less in the time in question seems relevant.


Maybe you should go back and read the post I was responding do.



Duncan could also score 30 a game for a playoff series if needed, but ideally he won't and it's the same with Jokic.



Jokic just won a title averaging 30 ppg in the playoffs :oldlol:

[Kblaze8855]

Duncan’s efficiency wasn’t close to Jokic’s. Even adjusted for era.

first of all, you really can’t adjust for era. You can only go relative to what other people shoot, which is not the same thing for an individual matchup facing tremendously different kinds of lineup. You can find relative to era but there’s no way to adjust for the different play styles of each era and how they change an individuals approach, and there never will be.

That said…what you said has nothing to do with the initial comment. I was told PPG. Shooting a lot less tends to factor in.

[tontoz]

Go to 13:06 for the breakdown of Duncan's faceup perimeter game. His jump shooting wasn't great but he had a tight handle and was coordinated enough to be a strong slashing threat.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhIS4wlLXk8&ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball


Did you even watch this video? It literally makes the same points I have been making.

It says Duncan shot only 38% outside 15 feet which was bottom 3rd in the league. It says he used his strength to establish deep position inside and finish through contact. Offensive highlights start at the 10 minute mark, time after time showing plays with his back to the basket

[FultzNationRISE]

Duncan’s efficiency wasn’t close to Jokic’s. Even adjusted for era.


Yeah.

Duncan's peak eFG was 54.9

Which is good. Dirk had exactly the same peak eFG. MJ beat them both by .1 to peak at an even 55.

Hakeem was 53.8.

Those were the highest single season eFG of their careers. About 55 eFG.



Jokic's LOWEST eFG in the last six years was 55.4.

Second lowest: 56.5.

Next: 60.2.

Then 60.5.

Then 62.

Then 66.

So far this year he's shooting 68 eFG :lol


Those arent raw numbers affected by pace or space. That's just simply how many points youre converting per shot attempt, plain and simple. And he's not just a "dunk everything at the rim for 8 points a night" big man who gets an easy ticket to a high eFG. He's doing sombor shuffles from 30 feet out, and his eFG is 68 :roll:

People really dont appreciate how crazy this dude is right now.

[tontoz]

Duncan’s efficiency wasn’t close to Jokic’s. Even adjusted for era.

That really isn't the right comparison. It is more relevant to say it wasn't close to Barkley who was also playing back then.

[FultzNationRISE]

That really isn't the right comparison. It is more relevant to say it wasn't close to Barkley who was also playing back then.

Barkley's peak 3 seasons in eFG were 60.8 60.6 and 60.4. So basically on par with what Jokic did in his first MVP season. But lagging way behind Jokic's last two seasons and his start to this year.

And that's just purely in terms of scoring, where Barkley has an argument to be as good as anyone ever. And Jokic has been crushing Barkley's absolute peak the last few couple years. Just in terms of scoring. Then you can add Jokic as literal GOAT passer/team lifter. All in one player. Then people might start getting the picture.

[Kblaze8855]

These are not raw numbers affected by pace or space. These are how many points youre converting on average when you shoot the ball.



There are no scoring efficiency numbers unaffected by the leagues play style other than FT percentage. And for the record I’m sure he’s good there. But it isn’t by coincidence the top 12…all time…in efg…are all modern centers. Chandler is the only retired one. They’re all current centers and small ball 5s.

Not most.

All. Number 1 all time is on the Nuggets with Jokic.

A real bruising big man is not supposed to miss many shots in today’s NBA. One who actually has skills?

People who suck are pushing around modern front lines for easy rebounds and doing whatever they feel like on the catch around the basket. Between that and the extreme spacing and over correcting, allowing for easy dump offs and open lanes out of the pick and roll spamming it’s never been easier for big men to be incredibly efficient.

Granted most of them are only asked finish plays and aren’t very good at offense otherwise(People like Rudy and Deandre) and that isn’t Jokic it’s still pretty clear this league allows otherworldly efficiency if you can so much as catch the ball in these largely empty lanes.

Jokic is actually skilled on top of it.

It’s still not by chance the entire list of all timers in your quoted stat is other people who take advantage of nobody imposing being in the lane. There were people who couldn’t do shit but finish easy layups and dunks 30 years ago too. Not like the unskilled guy who can only dunk was invented in 2015. That’s just about the time the league decided to get everybody else out of the way to let them do it.

We had big scrubs too. They still didn’t shoot 70% like these dudes. Someone was in the lane preventing them getting enough easy shots to shoot that well.

No longer the case.

[Im Still Ballin]

I don't think it's out of the question that Duncan could do 30ppg on 55% FG and 60% TS in today's league. If he's on a defensively-slanted team that needs him to carry a big offensive load. Kind of how it was early in his career.

His game would involve a lot more pick and rolls and dribble hand-offs. And he would do well because he was quick, coordinated, physical, drew a lot of fouls, and was a strong ball handler.

A lack of a quality outside shot isn't a requirement for being a strong offensive player. Anthony Davis decided to stop shooting and was putting up like 28 ppg on 65% TS over 39 or so games last season.

[tontoz]

The video pointed out something that I knew but had forgotten about. Duncan started basketball pretty late in life.

I remember the story now that he was a competitive swimmer in the Virgin Islands. Then a storm came through wiping everything out and closing the pool. Then he started basketball.

[FultzNationRISE]

I don't think it's out of the question that Duncan could do 30ppg on 55% FG and 60% TS in today's league. If he's on a defensively-slanted team that needs him to carry a big offensive load. Kind of how it was early in his career.

His game would involve a lot more pick and rolls and dribble hand-offs. And he would do well because he was quick, coordinated, physical, drew a lot of fouls, and was a strong ball handler.

A lack of a quality outside shot isn't a requirement for being a strong offensive player. Anthony Davis decided to stop shooting and was putting up like 28 ppg on 65% TS over 39 or so games last season.

Yeah I think the best play style comparison for Duncan today is Sabonis. Likes to operate out of the elbow rather than go back and forth between playing like a wing and center a la Jokic.

Altho I think Tim had an inch or so on Sabonis which makes him that much more difficult to deal with.

Ofc if you google Domantas Sabonis height it'll tell you he's 7'1 :rolleyes:

[Kblaze8855]

The video pointed out something that I knew but had forgotten about. Duncan started basketball pretty late in life.

I remember the story now that he was a competitive swimmer in the Virgin Islands. Then a storm came through wiping everything out and closing the pool. Then he started basketball.

go watch some Tim Duncan Wake Forest highlights. When he was more a natural athlete than a polished player. He was out there going coast to coast behind the back and finishing in traffic. I kind of wonder what he would do today now that they essentially legalized carrying and traveling so tall people who aren’t good at dribbling can suddenly play point guard.

A lot of those old mobile bigs would probably look entirely different. I’m not sure if Kevin Garnett would be a center or a wing right now. They played him at point guard a couple times even back in the day. Some modern coach might have him do it off and on a whole season like Jason Kidd did Giannis.

[FultzNationRISE]

There are no scoring efficiency numbers unaffected by the leagues play style other than FT percentage. And for the record I’m sure he’s good there. But it isn’t by coincidence the top 12…all time…in efg…are all modern centers. Chandler is the only retired one. They’re all current centers and small ball 5s.

Not most.

All. Number 1 all time is on the Nuggets with Jokic.

A real bruising big man is not supposed to miss many shots in today’s NBA. One who actually has skills?

People who suck are pushing around modern front lines for easy rebounds and doing whatever they feel like on the catch around the basket. Between that and the extreme spacing and over correcting, allowing for easy dump offs and open lanes out of the pick and roll spamming it’s never been easier for big men to be incredibly efficient.

Granted most of them are only asked finish plays and aren’t very good at offense otherwise(People like Rudy and Deandre) and that isn’t Jokic it’s still pretty clear this league allows otherworldly efficiency if you can so much as catch the ball in these largely empty lanes.

Jokic is actually skilled on top of it.

It’s still not by chance the entire list of all timers in your quoted stat is other people who take advantage of nobody imposing being in the lane. There were people who couldn’t do shit but finish easy layups and dunks 30 years ago too. Not like the unskilled guy who can only dunk was invented in 2015. That’s just about the time the league decided to get everybody else out of the way to let them do it.

We had big scrubs too. They still didn’t shoot 70% like these dudes. Someone was in the lane preventing them getting enough easy shots to shoot that well.

No longer the case.


28 points on 16 shots against your Bulls right now as we speak midway through the 4th.


In yo EYE :crazysam:

[elementally morale]

Meanwhile, Jokic in the second half has 24 points and 9 or 10 rebounds... and it's not over yet.

[elementally morale]

28 points on 16 shots against your Bulls right now as we speak midway through the 4th.


In yo EYE :crazysam:

And he missed 3 in a row around the rim when he was clearly pushed on like 2 of them. Still got the rebound and the 2 points in the end.

[FultzNationRISE]

Meanwhile, Jokic in the second half has 24 points and 9 or 10 rebounds... and it's not over yet.

Any idea what happened to Murray?

Box says he only played 10 minutes.

[Kblaze8855]

Against my Bulls? That’s a choose your stat line game for him. If he wants 4020 and 13 he can do it. Luckily he doesn’t care about such things.

[elementally morale]

Any idea what happened to Murray?

Box says he only played 10 minutes.

Hamstring. Day to day.

[tontoz]

go watch some Tim Duncan Wake Forest highlights. When he was more a natural athlete than a polished player. He was out there going coast to coast behind the back and finishing in traffic. I kind of wonder what he would do today now that they essentially legalized carrying and traveling so tall people who aren’t good at dribbling can suddenly play point guard.

A lot of those old mobile bigs would probably look entirely different. I’m not sure if Kevin Garnett would be a center or a wing right now. They played him at point guard a couple times even back in the day. Some modern coach might have him do it off and on a whole season like Jason Kidd did Giannis.


I think Duncan's big advantages today would be the same ones he had then, length and strength. He was very strong for a 7 footer, strong enough to actually slow down Shaq at times.

Problem is that the game has moved away from post play. Maybe having someone like him on the team would force them to make it a priority.

[Kblaze8855]

He’d likely be in a lot more pick and rolls. Maybe even finishing them with his floater you scrubbed from memory after he made 900 of them:


https://youtu.be/VSZ0FlFM16Y?si=HNvi4vkszRFf_UHy

[elementally morale]

Sombor triple double now. 28/16/9

43rd time he has done that in his career. Imagine if he would play for statlines.

[Im Still Ballin]

Hell, I think you'd even see some inverted pick and rolls with guys setting screens for Duncan. His ball handling and slashing were strong and his playmaking was good enough to make the basic reads. Especially in this spaced-out era.

[warriorfan]

I think Duncan's big advantages today would be the same ones he had then, length and strength. He was very strong for a 7 footer, strong enough to actually slow down Shaq at times.

Problem is that the game has moved away from post play. Maybe having someone like him on the team would force them to make it a priority.

This thread picked up and I need to catch up. But I just wanted to say Duncan’s physical ability gets underrated as hell. He wasn’t a supreme outlier in strength, speed, or vert, but if you combine both size, strength, mobility, coordination, he was a beast. Him not being an outlier in any particular category makes him not stand out as much in that aspect, but Timmy was a freak athletically, even for best of the best NBA standards.

[FultzNationRISE]

Hell, I think you'd even see some inverted pick and rolls with guys setting screens for Duncan. His ball handling and slashing were strong and his playmaking was good enough to make the basic reads. Especially in this spaced-out era.

His ball handling wasnt bad, it always looked kinda clunky to me but it generally got the job done when he used it. Altho I dont think he'd be doing quite the same things as Joker as a ball handler tho tbh.

[tontoz]

He’d likely be in a lot more pick and rolls. Maybe even finishing them with his floater you scrubbed from memory after he made 900 of them:


https://youtu.be/VSZ0FlFM16Y?si=HNvi4vkszRFf_UHy



Josh Smith made 450 3s in his career. He made a lot of them he just wasn't that good at them.

Some of those shots he was barely moving forward. When I am thinking of floaters I picture some who is driving and then puts up a teardrop. Some of those were more like a conventional shot.

[FultzNationRISE]

This thread picked up and I need to catch up. But I just wanted to say Duncan’s physical ability gets underrated as hell. He wasn’t a supreme outlier in strength, speed, or vert, but if you combine both size, strength, mobility, coordination, he was a beast. Him not being an outlier in any particular category makes him not stand out as much in that aspect, but Timmy was a freak athletically, even for best of the best NBA standards.


Yeah he had some vicious putbacks in his earlier days that are easy to forget based on the guy we got used to watching the last 10 years of his career.

[Walk on Water]

OP.. Jokic already tied Lebron in triple doubles. How many years has Lebron played? Exactly. So how can Lebron be the only goat or goat at all? How is Lebron better than Jokic? Hey I had to call you out on that. If Lebron is the goat, then Walk on Water is the sexiest man alive. Agree?

[dankok8]

Comparing Barkley and Jokic in peak scoring...

1988 Barkley: 26.8 pts/75 on 66.5 %TS (+12.7 rTS)
2023 Jokic: 29.8 pts/75 on 70.1 %TS (+12.0 rTS)

However if Barkley was playing in 2023 and kept the same relative efficiency of +12.7 rTS, he would shoot 70.8 %TS which would raise his scoring volume since he's now making more shots on his true shooting attempts. It seems fair to adjust for that.

Adjusted to 2023 conditions...

1988 Barkley: 28.5 pts/75 on 70.8 %TS (+12.7 rTS)
2023 Jokic: 29.8 pts/75 on 70.1 %TS (+12.0 rTS)

They are pretty close looking only at scoring.

[eliteballer]

OP.. Jokic already tied Lebron in triple doubles. How many years has Lebron played? Exactly. So how can Lebron be the only goat or goat at all? How is Lebron better than Jokic? Hey I had to call you out on that. If Lebron is the goat, then Walk on Water is the sexiest man alive. Agree?

Wow..wild stat.

[warriorfan]

It’s getting to the point where what else does Jokic have to do? It feels like if he put up 50/20/15 we would still hear it doesn’t matter because of the modern era.

To be honest at this point if you want to throw shade on Jokic for modern game, I don’t know why you are even watching anymore.

Should just fire up the 1985 season and watch those nightly instead. Because according to many , this shit doesn’t even matter anymore.

[sdot_thadon]

OP.. Jokic already tied Lebron in triple doubles. How many years has Lebron played? Exactly. So how can Lebron be the only goat or goat at all? How is Lebron better than Jokic? Hey I had to call you out on that. If Lebron is the goat, then Walk on Water is the sexiest man alive. Agree?

If you have to ask how Lebron is better than Jokic you probably shouldn't be posting here.....or anywhere for that matter lol.

[Baller234]

It’s getting to the point where what else does Jokic have to do? It feels like if he put up 50/20/15 we would still hear it doesn’t matter because of the modern era.

To be honest at this point if you want to throw shade on Jokic for modern game, I don’t know why you are even watching anymore.

Should just fire up the 1985 season and watch those nightly instead. Because according to many , this shit doesn’t even matter anymore.

depends on what you're trying to prove.

if you're trying to prove he's the best in the league, i would say he's already done that.

if you're trying to prove he's the best of all time, or that he's as good as anyone else who's ever been considered the best of all time, then i still think he has ways to go. especially knowing the guys he's ultimately going to be compared to.

[elementally morale]

Quiet game where he doesn't shoot well. 22/8/8 in the 1st half. Should have 10+ assists by now, his teammates blew two easy layups and a couple of open shots.

[kawhileonard2]

Of course there is no singular objective “GOAT” (Besides Lebron). It’s just a talk show topic that fans see on TV and naturally take seriously and think is real and parrot the idea like there really is a true consecutive hierarchy that objectively goes from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 etc and they think they can prove it by reciting things like “he has x rings!” or “he made 11 all stars and a dpoy!”

Fact is “GOAT” isnt a real thing (the only one with an argument is Lebron). Player A could be better than player B in one situation, player B better than C in another, and C better than A in another. Everyone plays under different circumstances, theres no measurement that can prove one guy is “greater” than everyone else.

But the reality is Jokic is DWARFING his peers in what is by far the most globally competitive, highly trained talent pool ever. And he does it in both the irrelevant season and the post season. He’s in the same class of “there is no argument for anyone else in his own time” that Lebron and MJ were.

If youre honest and intelligent - and lets face it that isnt a lot of you - you dont need some arbitrary criterion that you just made up in your head to justify keeping things from changing. “Nah uh, not until he wins, uhh… this many!” *holds hands apart like a babbling toddler*

Theres nothing basketball wise you can say puts anyone else ahead of him. Doesnt mean hes as good at every facet as every player but in terms of the totality. Nobody ever has a game that is clearly above Jokic. Even his defensive metrics in last yearÂ’s playoffs were on par with Giannis’. Part of that was a great team strategy in terms of how to shade him, rather than him being a dominant rim protector, but if its not an exploitable weakness who cares.

So please, if you hear people start to talk about him being as good as anyone ever, dont be a dumb reactionary robot and give pleb reasons based on dumb things you heard on first take about “not until he wins ____.” Im just letting you know now. If you say such things, youre not gonna be seen as very smart. Youre gonna be seen as a frog who cant understand things on his own and repeats whatever TV Man says.

Thank you.

Lost with HCA while other all time greats that won league and finals mvp that turned franchise into dynasty didn't.

[elementally morale]

Jokic has a triple double before the end of the 3rd.

29/13/10

Still a quarter to go.

[Axe]

*autistic rambling*
Stfu, jordansbulls.

[warriorfan]

depends on what you're trying to prove.

if you're trying to prove he's the best in the league, i would say he's already done that.

if you're trying to prove he's the best of all time, or that he's as good as anyone else who's ever been considered the best of all time, then i still think he has ways to go. especially knowing the guys he's ultimately going to be compared to.

This is where it gets messed up. He could post the 50/20 season and still get doubters. It’s stupid.

MJ ruined all era basketball discussions.

He mixed a portion of bill russell’s winning with a portion of some of the most individually dominating basketball we have ever seen.

He was a once in multiple generation both of talent and personality combined, as the stars aligned for him to have an almost fantastical storybook of a career, where he virtually had no faulter in comparison to anyone else. He set a bar so high that it can almost never be reattained nevertheless surpassed.

I am being speculative because I wasn’t around, but I imagine goat talks before MJ were a lot more interesting. You had Wilt vs Russell, oscar in the mix, and I imagine ring counting wasn’t as much of a thing. Then you had Magic and Bird bridging the gap and making some noise in the conversation. Then here comes Jordan setting a new bar that’s just unrealistic. Now a player needs to not only be a perennial MVP game breaking player but also rip off 5+ championships with 3 peats or back to backs at least.

This all goes back to the dead horse that has been beaten plenty already but there are no real airtight goat ranking arguments anymore. It’s just impossible.


We can say that jokic has absolutely dominated his peers and he could hang with any big man in the history of the game and leave it at that.

[Mask the Embiid]

Of course there is no singular objective “GOAT” (Besides Lebron). It’s just a talk show topic that fans see on TV and naturally take seriously and think is real and parrot the idea like there really is a true consecutive hierarchy that objectively goes from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 etc and they think they can prove it by reciting things like “he has x rings!” or “he made 11 all stars and a dpoy!”

Fact is “GOAT” isnt a real thing (the only one with an argument is Lebron). Player A could be better than player B in one situation, player B better than C in another, and C better than A in another. Everyone plays under different circumstances, theres no measurement that can prove one guy is “greater” than everyone else.

But the reality is Jokic is DWARFING his peers in what is by far the most globally competitive, highly trained talent pool ever. And he does it in both the irrelevant season and the post season. He’s in the same class of “there is no argument for anyone else in his own time” that Lebron and MJ were.

If youre honest and intelligent - and lets face it that isnt a lot of you - you dont need some arbitrary criterion that you just made up in your head to justify keeping things from changing. “Nah uh, not until he wins, uhh… this many!” *holds hands apart like a babbling toddler*

Theres nothing basketball wise you can say puts anyone else ahead of him. Doesnt mean hes as good at every facet as every player but in terms of the totality. Nobody ever has a game that is clearly above Jokic. Even his defensive metrics in last yearÂ’s playoffs were on par with Giannis’. Part of that was a great team strategy in terms of how to shade him, rather than him being a dominant rim protector, but if its not an exploitable weakness who cares.

So please, if you hear people start to talk about him being as good as anyone ever, dont be a dumb reactionary robot and give pleb reasons based on dumb things you heard on first take about “not until he wins ____.” Im just letting you know now. If you say such things, youre not gonna be seen as very smart. Youre gonna be seen as a frog who cant understand things on his own and repeats whatever TV Man says.

Thank you.

https://images.rivals.com/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto,t_headline_primary/nouduwhdkrl1gisx71k9