Jokic is the 4th best player of all time

[QUOTE=StrongLurk;14984732]Get Hakeem out of there bro. The others are fine.

Jokic has had the least amount of help by quite a bit out of these players, and it's magnified even more by him playing the the modern era where teams have a lot more flexibility to improve their rosters.[/QUOTE]

Hakeem had less help than Jokic on his back to back title run and he ran through young Shaq and Ewing in the finals.

Hakeem's Rockets and Kobe's Lakers had the least amount of help for any b2b champions in league history.

[QUOTE=stalkerforlife;14985940]Hakeem had less help than Jokic on his back to back title run and he ran through young Shaq and Ewing in the finals.

Hakeem's Rockets and Kobe's Lakers had the least amount of help for any b2b champions in league history.[/QUOTE]

:roll:

[QUOTE=StrongLurk;14985955]:roll:[/QUOTE]
Which part of that is funny? The Kobe claim is disingenuous because while historically that's true, he still had at worst the 2nd best supporting cast in the league when he was winning titles at the time. But Hakeem? 1994 just might be the weakest championship supporting cast ever, it's at worst top 3, and sure, past prime Drexler was still All-NBA caliber, but that would also be at the lower end of championship casts ever. Jokic's team with Murray putting up damn near superstar level production was certainly stronger.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14985956]Which part of that is funny? The Kobe claim is disingenuous because while historically that's true, he still had at worst the 2nd best supporting cast in the league when he was winning titles at the time. But Hakeem? 1994 just might be the weakest championship supporting cast ever, it's at worst top 3, and sure, past prime Drexler was still All-NBA caliber, but that would also be at the lower end of championship casts ever. Jokic's team with Murray putting up damn near superstar level production was certainly stronger.[/QUOTE]

Well for one, I was referring to all the other players besides Hakeem in the original post, in which case Jokic definitely had less help.

I am laughing at even mentioning Hakeem/Kobe's peak in comparison to Jokic. It's just a conversation not worth having, Kobe/Hakeem's supporting casts are irrelevant.

Remember, Jokic has YET to have any all-nba or all-nba defensive teammates. NONE.

Jamal Murray has had a few fantastic playoff runs, but he still hasn't made an all-star team in the regular season at least...

[QUOTE=StrongLurk;14985957]Well for one, I was referring to all the other players besides Hakeem in the original post, in which case Jokic definitely had less help.

I am laughing at even mentioning Hakeem/Kobe's peak in comparison to Jokic. It's just a conversation not worth having, Kobe/Hakeem's supporting casts are irrelevant.

Remember, Jokic has YET to have any all-nba or all-nba defensive teammates. NONE.

Jamal Murray has had a few fantastic playoff runs, but he still hasn't made an all-star team in the regular season at least...[/QUOTE]
You are in the extreme minority if you genuinely don't believe Hakeem's peak is on par with Jokic's. Guy was averaging 30 ppg while playing DPOY caliber defense and destroying his contemporaries h2h in Ewing & Robinson. I frankly find it strange how much you downplay it.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14985956]Which part of that is funny? [B]The Kobe claim is disingenuous because while historically that's true, he still had at worst the 2nd best supporting cast in the league when he was winning titles at the time[/B]. But Hakeem? 1994 just might be the weakest championship supporting cast ever, it's at worst top 3, and sure, past prime Drexler was still All-NBA caliber, but that would also be at the lower end of championship casts ever. Jokic's team with Murray putting up damn near superstar level production was certainly stronger.[/QUOTE]

Yea this has always been a weird one to me. Kobe having less help beating the Magic in 09 than Magic did beating the Celtics in 87 doesn't really mean anything.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14985956]Which part of that is funny? The Kobe claim is disingenuous because while historically that's true, he still had at worst the 2nd best supporting cast in the league when he was winning titles at the time. But Hakeem? 1994 just might be the weakest championship supporting cast ever, it's at worst top 3, and sure, past prime Drexler was still All-NBA caliber, but that would also be at the lower end of championship casts ever. Jokic's team with Murray putting up damn near superstar level production was certainly stronger.[/QUOTE]

Taking Jamal Murray no question over Clyde Drexler is a wild ass take. Drexler had one of his best playoff runs in 1995 playoffs.

[QUOTE=StrongLurk;14985957]Well for one, I was referring to all the other players besides Hakeem in the original post, in which case Jokic definitely had less help.

I am laughing at even mentioning Hakeem/Kobe's peak in comparison to Jokic. It's just a conversation not worth having, Kobe/Hakeem's supporting casts are irrelevant.

Remember, Jokic has YET to have any all-nba or all-nba defensive teammates. NONE.

Jamal Murray has had a few fantastic playoff runs, but he still hasn't made an all-star team in the regular season at least...[/QUOTE]

I'm referring to back to back champions.

Out of all the repeat champions in league history, Hakeem had the least amount of help for any b2b champion. Kobe is 2nd behind Hakeem regarding the strength of supporting cast for b2b champions.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14985958]You are in the extreme minority if you genuinely don't believe Hakeem's peak is on par with Jokic's. Guy was averaging 30 ppg while playing DPOY caliber defense and destroying his contemporaries h2h in Ewing & Robinson. I frankly find it strange how much you downplay it.[/QUOTE]

Ewing and Robinson would get destroyed by Jokic too. Again, whatever defensive advantage Hakeem has doesnt make up for the big gap in offense compared to Jokic.

Hakeem had a great peak, I just wouldn't put it top 5 all time. Jokic to me will easily have a "longer" peak than Hakeem's which matters a lot to me (just like Lebron's "peak" actually extends a long time).

[QUOTE=tpols;14985968]Taking Jamal Murray no question over Clyde Drexler is a wild ass take. Drexler had one of his best playoff runs in 1995 playoffs.[/QUOTE]

Murray led them in scoring in WCF and put up 32, 6, and 5 on 50, 40, 90 shooting.

[QUOTE=tpols;14985968]Taking Jamal Murray no question over Clyde Drexler is a wild ass take. Drexler had one of his best playoff runs in 1995 playoffs.[/QUOTE]
I will never understand the reverence you have for that playoff run, I can't even chalk it up to agenda. Drexler had a really good first round where he balled out in all their wins in that series. After that, he averaged 19/7/5 on 55%TS the rest of the playoffs.

Why you're under the impression this was some notable playoff run, and not a standard 2nd option performance, I for sure don't know. But yes, talking specifically how they performed in the playoff runs in question, not how they are as overall players, Murray performed better than Drexler did. I really don't see how you could dispute that.

[QUOTE=stalkerforlife;14985981]Murray led them in scoring in WCF and put up 32, 6, and 5 on 50, 40, 90 shooting.[/QUOTE]

Would he do that in the 90s much slower paced and defense oriented games? And without Jokics GOAT passing which boosts his game?

Clyde is one of the GOAT SGs and he was still prime in 1995. I can't even imagine what a talent like he was would do in today's spaced out era with way fewer great rim protectors. He was considered a slasher athlete on par with MJ.

I never thought I'd see the day Jamal Murray is considered hands down better than Clyde Drexler. This is a funny place.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14985982]I will never understand the reverence you have for that playoff run, I can't even chalk it up to agenda. Drexler had a really good first round where he balled out in all their wins in that series. After that, he averaged 19/7/5 on 55%TS the rest of the playoffs.

Why you're under the impression this was some notable playoff run, and not a standard 2nd option performance, I for sure don't know. But yes, talking specifically how they performed in the playoff runs in question, not how they are as overall players, Murray performed better than Drexler did. I really don't see how you could dispute that.[/QUOTE]

It's silly to transpose statlines from one team and one era to another exactly. It's very commonly accepted that it's easier to get stats today than slugfest 90s so you'd have to adjust for that and the fact that Jokic is a much better passer and playmaker than Hakeem which helps Murray's offensive game. You're not even considering the tremendous context differences at all.

[QUOTE=StrongLurk;14985973]Ewing and Robinson would get destroyed by Jokic too. Again, whatever defensive advantage Hakeem has doesnt make up for the big gap in offense compared to Jokic.

Hakeem had a great peak, I just wouldn't put it top 5 all time. Jokic to me will easily have a "longer" peak than Hakeem's which matters a lot to me (just like Lebron's "peak" actually extends a long time).[/QUOTE]
You think Jokic is coming remotely close to limiting Robinson to 24 ppg on 45%, or Ewing to 19 ppg on 36%?

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14985987]You think Jokic is coming remotely close to limiting Robinson to 24 ppg on 45%, or Ewing to 19 ppg on 36%?[/QUOTE]

Not quite as good as Hakeem would obviously, but Robinson and Ewing would get smoked even more on offense by Jokic.

Jokic is literally a better version of Larry Bird, and most people consider Bird already better than Hakeem..sooo...do the math buddy.

2023 Jokic: 31.2 PER, 63.1 TS%, .305 WS/48, 12.8 BPM

1994 Hakeem: 27.7 PER, 56.8 TS%, .208 WS/48, 8.5 BPM

Whatever advantage Hakeem has on defense isn't enough to make up for the gap above. Jokic is literally number 1 all time in a ton of advanced stats, even ahead of MJ/Lebron. He's simply better than Hakeem.