Jokic is the best player since Jordan

[Godymas]

ridiculous thing to say

LeBron 2011-2013 was the best player in the league on both sides of the ball and won back to back MVPs (which made him a 4x MVP) and had 2 rings

Jokic is NOT anything noteable on defense other than rebounding

And Lebron stopped playing defense not long after that.

is it better to have been one of the best defensive players in the league and offensive players in the league

or to just be the best offensive player in the league with no chance of ever being that guy on defense

and miss me with that "Jokic has such high BBIQ unique passer" nonsense

LeBron is JUST as good if not ARGUABLY BETTER of a passer than Jokic

LeBron has also had a 10 APG season just like Jokic's max.

[Big_Aristotle]

For the topic opener: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recency_bias

[dhsilv2]

There is no such thing as hypothetical CHIPS or projected CHIPS won.

Nobody said there is. But the question asked is if at Jokic's best, he's the best since Jordan. So we're talking about one year. Not 10, not 15. One year. Most guys don't get a "chip" (I assume Doritos sponsored your post?) in their peak seasons. So it's already a dumb place to start. But you still have a max of 1 title you can win in one season.

Okay. This thread has is trying too hard.

Not really. It's a good thing when you can appreciate greatness live in real time.

[dhsilv2]

Murray "not being an allstar" is such a disingenuous statement. He's better than a lot have been and has played at above all-star level in the playoffs. If Shai won MVP this year, does Jokic's 2 MVP career make him a worse player than being a 3x winner? If he does win, is he worse than if he had 4? No? Then who cares?

Ginobili was a bench player most of his career. Bench players are bench players because they aren't good enough to start. Does that mean Manu wasn't good enough to start?

This isn't a courtroom where you're trying to exonerate Jokic from a crime and the smoking gun is whether his teammate has been an all-star or not. Its a basketball message board. We're just talking about a game people play for fun. Whats the point of these technicality arguments as if we're trying to get Tony Soprano off a murder charge?

Nobody's going to think "Oh, I guess Jokic is even better than I thought" when you bring up Murray isn't an all-star. We know how great he is. It just makes you look like you care more about winning arguments than the actual game itself.

Murray just had his best season. He was unquestionably not a top 24 player at the allstar break. No other year has he come anywhere close to even being in the conversation for the allstar game. As has been said, he's had some HUGE playoff games. But even in the playoffs Murray has been extremely inconsistent.

A better point is that Gordon and MJP are a better 3-4 guys than most guys get with another star. Not that Murray has actually been a star. He simply hasn't been.

I get what you mean, but I think given his skillset and his somewhat extended history of crazy playoff performances, it all averages out to him being at least a roughly all-star player. If you're dealing with him in a series, he's someone you can't just let rock out or it will be bad for you. But he could also get outplayed pretty easily and have some of the worst games you'll ever see. But in the context of this nuggets team, with Jokic, I think you have to go out of your way to say he's not an all-star level guy. otherwise, Jokic is just by far the greatest player ever and it's not close.

That's the conclusion I'm starting to draw. That I fiercely disagree that a player need to allstar level to be extremely valuable.

Also...most stars get a nice number 2 so they don't have to work so hard in the regular season. jokic for sure doesn't get that.

[dhsilv2]

There is no such thing as hypothetical CHIPS or projected CHIPS won.

Nobody said there is. But the question asked is if at Jokic's best, he's the best since Jordan. So we're talking about one year. Not 10, not 15. One year. Most guys don't get a "chip" (I assume Doritos sponsored your post?) in their peak seasons. So it's already a dumb place to start. But you still have a max of 1 title you can win in one season.

LeBron's peak 2013, not 2009.

2013 is the other argument, but I don't agree.

[Pelly24]

Murray just had his best season. He was unquestionably not a top 24 player at the allstar break. No other year has he come anywhere close to even being in the conversation for the allstar game. As has been said, he's had some HUGE playoff games. But even in the playoffs Murray has been extremely inconsistent.

A better point is that Gordon and MJP are a better 3-4 guys than most guys get with another star. Not that Murray has actually been a star. He simply hasn't been.

I get what you mean, but I think given his skillset and his somewhat extended history of crazy playoff performances, it all averages out to him being at least a roughly all-star player. If you're dealing with him in a series, he's someone you can't just let rock out or it will be bad for you. But he could also get outplayed pretty easily and have some of the worst games you'll ever see. But in the context of this nuggets team, with Jokic, I think you have to go out of your way to say he's not an all-star level guy. otherwise, Jokic is just by far the greatest player ever and it's not close.

That's the conclusion I'm starting to draw. That I fiercely disagree that a player need to allstar level to be extremely valuable.

Also...most stars get a nice number 2 so they don't have to work so hard in the regular season. jokic for sure doesn't get that.

yeah I'll say, if Jokic had an actual all-nba guard/wing w. him, nuggets would win a lot more regular season games.

[Peregrine01]

Murray just had his best season. He was unquestionably not a top 24 player at the allstar break. No other year has he come anywhere close to even being in the conversation for the allstar game. As has been said, he's had some HUGE playoff games. But even in the playoffs Murray has been extremely inconsistent.

A better point is that Gordon and MJP are a better 3-4 guys than most guys get with another star. Not that Murray has actually been a star. He simply hasn't been.

I get what you mean, but I think given his skillset and his somewhat extended history of crazy playoff performances, it all averages out to him being at least a roughly all-star player. If you're dealing with him in a series, he's someone you can't just let rock out or it will be bad for you. But he could also get outplayed pretty easily and have some of the worst games you'll ever see. But in the context of this nuggets team, with Jokic, I think you have to go out of your way to say he's not an all-star level guy. otherwise, Jokic is just by far the greatest player ever and it's not close.

That's the conclusion I'm starting to draw. That I fiercely disagree that a player need to allstar level to be extremely valuable.

Also...most stars get a nice number 2 so they don't have to work so hard in the regular season. jokic for sure doesn't get that.

I mean, it's not like the Nuggets are some juggernaut team. If they were then Jokic is probably the GOAT. But since they aren't, it matches up well with the idea that they have Jokic and a bunch of guys around him who are solid and well-rounded but really aren't all-star level talents. And with the new CBA making it difficult to construct juggernauts, that might be enough to be contenders year in and year out.

[Ssj16]

I get what you mean, but I think given his skillset and his somewhat extended history of crazy playoff performances, it all averages out to him being at least a roughly all-star player. If you're dealing with him in a series, he's someone you can't just let rock out or it will be bad for you. But he could also get outplayed pretty easily and have some of the worst games you'll ever see. But in the context of this nuggets team, with Jokic, I think you have to go out of your way to say he's not an all-star level guy. otherwise, Jokic is just by far the greatest player ever and it's not close.

That's the conclusion I'm starting to draw. That I fiercely disagree that a player need to allstar level to be extremely valuable.

Also...most stars get a nice number 2 so they don't have to work so hard in the regular season. jokic for sure doesn't get that.

I mean, it's not like the Nuggets are some juggernaut team. If they were then Jokic is probably the GOAT. But since they aren't, it matches up well with the idea that they have Jokic and a bunch of guys around him who are solid and well-rounded but really aren't all-star level talents. And with the new CBA making it difficult to construct juggernauts, that might be enough to be contenders year in and year out.

On paper they aren't a juggernaut but in actuality they smoked the playoffs last year like a Juggernaut would.

But it's the typical rhetoric where when you demolish your opponent the opponent isn't that good which diminishes your accomplishments rather than praising them.

I've seen this type of thinking too much in the world of UFC forums.

[sikma42]

Seems like it would still have to be Lebron. But I do think Jokic needs even more respect.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[dhsilv2]

I get what you mean, but I think given his skillset and his somewhat extended history of crazy playoff performances, it all averages out to him being at least a roughly all-star player. If you're dealing with him in a series, he's someone you can't just let rock out or it will be bad for you. But he could also get outplayed pretty easily and have some of the worst games you'll ever see. But in the context of this nuggets team, with Jokic, I think you have to go out of your way to say he's not an all-star level guy. otherwise, Jokic is just by far the greatest player ever and it's not close.

That's the conclusion I'm starting to draw. That I fiercely disagree that a player need to allstar level to be extremely valuable.

Also...most stars get a nice number 2 so they don't have to work so hard in the regular season. jokic for sure doesn't get that.

I mean, it's not like the Nuggets are some juggernaut team. If they were then Jokic is probably the GOAT. But since they aren't, it matches up well with the idea that they have Jokic and a bunch of guys around him who are solid and well-rounded but really aren't all-star level talents. And with the new CBA making it difficult to construct juggernauts, that might be enough to be contenders year in and year out.

The thing is a lot of people keep using that against Jokic. He has to work hard to keep his team near the top of the west because he's got good support spread out among a few guys but doesn't have that other guy who can just kinda take things over for him like a Kobe, Pippen, McHale, Kareem/Magic, etc. His team is more like Dream's with Horry, Thorp (who did make an allstar team with Dream), and Cassell. 3 guys who all imo were at the allstar level at some point in their careers, but during those title runs were likely a tier below allstar. Hakeem gets credit for upsets in the playoffs that happened because he couldn't carry the load like Jokic for 82 games. So we're not being fair/consistent.

[soxfan2003]

People are overrating Jokic a bit here. Prime Shaq > current Jokic but Jokic having a better career than Shaq is in the realm of possibility. Jokic is more valuable than prime Shaq offensively but when you add defense into the equation, I gotta give prime Shaq the edge. Jokic does a good job not fouling and using his size but Shaq during his title run with the Lakers was the better defender even if he was never Mutombo on the defensive end.

Giannis, Curry, Lebron, Jokic, Doncic, regular season Harden at least are some of the players that benefit a lot from the gradual but persistent change in NBA rules over the past 4-5 decades. The rule change and coaches warming up to the importance of the 3 have added up. It has clearly helped offenses as a whole but the league rule changes and how the game has evolved has helped some players a lot and hurt other players.

How would a specific players value change without the 3 point shot in existence or with a lot less players being able to hit it? (In the past for better and worse, you could at least defend 3 point players more aggressively.)
How would an NBA players game change if traveling was called like it is 1980 which seems like a happy medium in the lifespan of NBA basketball? In the early 80's announcers complained about uncalled traveling which was nothing compared to what is happening today.

This modern NBA game has made it much easier for one player to dominate offensively even if their skills (Doncic is prime example) are not really that impressive compared to some past legends.

In an NBA where 3 point shooting isn't such of an advantage and the floor isn't spaced so much, all of sudden many more old school PF's on the court to grab rebounds/defend the interior and Jokic/Lebron and especially Doncic/Harden lose noticeable value.

These modern rules are destroying the value of some old school PF's but artificially inflating the values of other players. Jokic is hardly the most egregious example but he is one player whose game on offense is pretty much perfect for this modern rules.

[TravisScott55]

Duncan and Lebron are better than Jokic.

[Cubbies2120]

ridiculous thing to say

LeBron 2011-2013 was the best player in the league on both sides of the ball and won back to back MVPs (which made him a 4x MVP) and had 2 rings

Jokic is NOT anything noteable on defense other than rebounding

And Lebron stopped playing defense not long after that.

is it better to have been one of the best defensive players in the league and offensive players in the league

or to just be the best offensive player in the league with no chance of ever being that guy on defense

and miss me with that "Jokic has such high BBIQ unique passer" nonsense

LeBron is JUST as good if not ARGUABLY BETTER of a passer than Jokic

LeBron has also had a 10 APG season just like Jokic's max.

Nonsense.

[zero rings]

ridiculous thing to say

LeBron 2011-2013 was the best player in the league on both sides of the ball and won back to back MVPs (which made him a 4x MVP) and had 2 rings

Jokic is NOT anything noteable on defense other than rebounding

And Lebron stopped playing defense not long after that.

is it better to have been one of the best defensive players in the league and offensive players in the league

or to just be the best offensive player in the league with no chance of ever being that guy on defense

and miss me with that "Jokic has such high BBIQ unique passer" nonsense

LeBron is JUST as good if not ARGUABLY BETTER of a passer than Jokic

LeBron has also had a 10 APG season just like Jokic's max.

Lebron has been the de facto point guard on every team he’s played for. He’s a great passer, but he’s not doing anything we haven’t seen before.

What Jokic does is far more impressive. He has to make lighting quick decisions out of the post or on the short roll, often without even taking a dribble. The way he manipulates defenders with his eyes is downright freaky.

I honestly don’t know how anyone can watch both of these guys and come to the conclusion that Lebron is the better passer.

[shi-woo]

Jokic is the best player i've ever seen play the game, since I started watching in 2003.

People can say LeBron, but Jokic did what LeBron couldn't, lead his nobody team to promised land, and didn't need to team up with 2 all-nba players to do it.

He doesn't need to because he is the dominant center, he is the dominant pg, and he is the dominant shooter. He kills you with size, with strength, from inside, midrange and the 3. He's Duncan and Dirk on offense, but has LeBrons feel and passing IQ except it's actually a level better Like at this point its kind of rude to not admit Jokic is the best playmaker since Magic, and easily the best of the 21st century.

As the OP states, from a pure skill and talent standpoint, minus all the awards and what not, and this isn't even a serious question. You could try and argue LeBron, but the argument would have to be that LBJs defense makes up the difference between Jokics shooting, passing, inside dominance, and rebounding.

Centers because of their size are always favored in a game that is size dependant. Their only knock is they need someone to create for them. Jokic is really the only one that solved that puzzle, and no ones been able to solve him.

U know you're goat level talent when your only knock is racist people saying big fat white boy cant defend, and "ohh wait till he plays a team that spams the pick and roll!!"

[DidUSaySometing]

jokic is the best player of all time. he's a top 5 scorer, passer, and rebounder

[DidUSaySometing]

ridiculous thing to say

and miss me with that "Jokic has such high BBIQ unique passer" nonsense

LeBron is JUST as good if not ARGUABLY BETTER of a passer than Jokic

LeBron has also had a 10 APG season just like Jokic's max.

it's not just his passing. jokic is an elite screen-setter, and his ability to roll and pop make him the most effective playmaker. it almost isn't fair to compare anyone to jokic, who is an all time great in the 3 major statistical categories.

[Gusto1903]

The thing with Jokic, apart from his incredible talent is. I havent seen bad performances from him. I never seen him collapse, for sure not in the playoffs, even with his #2 and #3 out and fn Will Barton being his #2.
Dude just doesnt have terrible games. He may have off days. But even in those, he never looks lost on the court. He doesnt struggle.

[One Last Shot]

Jokic is the best player i've ever seen play the game, since I started watching in 2003.

People can say LeBron, but Jokic did what LeBron couldn't, lead his nobody team to promised land, and didn't need to team up with 2 all-nba players to do it.

I don't understand why some of you insist that Jokic lead his "nobody team" to promised land last playoffs when he's basically playing with someone who's just as good as the Eastern Conference Playoffs MVP for the entire postseason.


Jamal Murray in 2023 Playoffs
26.1 ppg, 7.1 apg, 5.7 rpg, 1.5 spg in 58.6 TS%

Jimmy Butler in 2023 Playoffs
26.9 ppg, 5.9 apg, 6.5 rpg, 1.8 spg in 56.5 TS%

[mcmurphy]

The history of Jokic will be remembered as that of the bumblebee that cannot fly.

As rookie: "is not enough athletic to plays in Nba"
As sophomore: "is good but sure is not a franchise player talent level"
3rd season: "yeah, but is a stat padding player... he never even made the playoffs"
4th season: "ok, barely has made the playoff but has been eliminated by Dame"
5th season: "ok, but is carried by Murray"
... and so on.


At the end of his career it will be seen that whoever played with him will have won something and whoever leaves him will no longer win anything.