Jokic is the best player since Jordan

[KGDirkTD_Fan]

guy needs some more titles but I haven't seen a player since Miami/2nd Cleveland LeBron where it just felt so inevitable on what he was going to do to you. on paper the Celtics have to beat the Nuggets this year but I just can't see how they will lose 4 games where a player makes the correct play 95+% of the time. a bad game for him is recording a triple double for **** sake. but like others mentioend...i remembered watching prime Shaq, that's a completely different beast in itself.

[Pelly24]

Here's the thing with Jokic v prime shaq: Jokic is basically Shaq and Kobe at the *same damn time*. When you average 30 ppg on +9 TS% in the playoffs, you're scoring at Shaw-level efficiency, but the difference is, Jokic is a good free throw shooter and possibly the greatest playmaker ever, while also being plus defender. There's essentially no weakness to exploit. Possibly the best scorer and passer in the league while also being a very good defender who makes very few mistakes.

[dhsilv2]

He's going to need at least as many rings as LeBron and Steph to enter this conversation.

If you think last year was Jokic's best year. You can argue he's got more rings than Curry and Lebron combined since Curry's peak was 2016 and Lebron's 2009.

[LaLover11]

Best player since Shaq

[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.

[dhsilv2]

I did not read through the entire thread so apologies if this point has been made but Jokic has played the following mins in the last four seasons:

2021: 2488 RS + 345 PS
2022: 2476 RS + 171 PS
2023: 2323 RS + 789 PS
2024: 2737 RS + 81 PS (and counting)

Shaq:

2000: 3163 RS + 1000 PS
2001: 2924 RS + 676 PS
2002: 2422 RS + 776 PS
2003: 2535 RS + 481 PS

Lebron:

2009: 3054 RS + 580 PS
2010: 2966 RS + 460 PS
2011: 3063 RS + 922 PS
2013: 2877 RS + 960 PS

I get that guys play less now but at some point volume has to be taken into consideration.

That volume should be compared against peers, not against prior eras. Same as every single other metric we discuss. And in that Lebron would still stand out as the most minutes played and Shaq would be pretty far the worst here.

[Warriorfan]

See Curry only unanimous MVP

[dhsilv2]

I did not read through the entire thread so apologies if this point has been made but Jokic has played the following mins in the last four seasons:

2021: 2488 RS + 345 PS
2022: 2476 RS + 171 PS
2023: 2323 RS + 789 PS
2024: 2737 RS + 81 PS (and counting)

Shaq:

2000: 3163 RS + 1000 PS
2001: 2924 RS + 676 PS
2002: 2422 RS + 776 PS
2003: 2535 RS + 481 PS

Lebron:

2009: 3054 RS + 580 PS
2010: 2966 RS + 460 PS
2011: 3063 RS + 922 PS
2013: 2877 RS + 960 PS

I get that guys play less now but at some point volume has to be taken into consideration.

I'm not sure it does given that basically no one see Jokic as having any kind of endurance issue.

I would like to go on record with the claim that Jokic likely does have an endurance issue, and that his health and stats have been aided more so than others by both playing less games and less mpg than stars from previous eras. I think Luka also benefits from this. Both guys are wonderful players, though not exactly athletic specimens.

Jokic might have the best endurance of any big man in NBA history sans Wilt. OK a bit far...we got others up there, but we've really never seen big men who moved as much as he does. The man literally never stops moving while on the court. NBA players are in absolute disbelief with how much Jokic can run. Here's Ayton just gasping for air after getting physically run off the court by Jokic.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/zwtnzs/highlight_deandre_ayton_in_disbelief_at_jokics/

[dshearn]

Shaq was so dominant. Peak Shaq is probably the best player in the NBA.

peak Shaq is the most unstoppable player I have ever seen....

It also happened in an era that was more geared to deal with someone like Shaq.

I am sure people have their own takes on this, but I can't fathom. how peak shaq is not in the conversation with other players all time peak.

[dhsilv2]

I would like to go on record with the claim that Jokic likely does have an endurance issue, and that his health and stats have been aided more so than others by both playing less games and less mpg than stars from previous eras. I think Luka also benefits from this. Both guys are wonderful players, though not exactly athletic specimens.


I'm not arguing that. I'm making a similar argument to the one I made to you about 2005 Manu. You have to give additional credit to the guys who played/did more. Jokic might have done more per possession than 2013 Lebron for example (though I wouldn't even argue this), but you can't give credit for possessions he didn't play. If Denver was winning 70 games per year and Jokic was playing less mins because he was sitting out all the 4th quarters, that would be one thing. But that isn't what happened.

On this endurance issue, the game was a lot slower in the past (both in terms of pace and in terms of player movement). A big reason star players play a bit less now is that the game moves faster now, so it’s more tiring to be out there. I don’t think past players would come into this era and be able to play the number of minutes they played in the past. And the converse of that is that I think if today’s players were transported back to past eras they’d be able to sustain a higher minutes load. To think otherwise would almost inherently require believing that player stamina has gone down over time, and I really doubt that that’s right (indeed, we’d generally expect the opposite to be the case, with more modern fitness and whatnot).

Agreed though we're not talking about Pascal Siakam here in terms of fitness and athleticism. We're talking about Jokic. I think it's more than fair to question his ability to play more mins and more games given he hasn't proven that he can do it (in either era). More to the point, I do believe that if we transported 2013 Lebron to today's era that it'd be a reasonable assumption that he'd still maintain a fitness and possession volume advantage; 2000 Shaq is perhaps less clear though I also believe he'd fair at least as well if not better than Jokic in that respect. Edit: other versions of Shaq would be run off the floor.

Jokic averaged 39.5 minutes a game over 20 games in the playoffs just last year...Shaq averaged 43.5 in 2000. We're not talking about some insane difference here. And he doesn't get the rest up taking free throws like Shaq used to.

Jokic was 9th in minutes played this year.

[dhsilv2]

Agreed though we're not talking about Pascal Siakam here in terms of fitness and athleticism. We're talking about Jokic. I think it's more than fair to question his ability to play more mins and more games given he hasn't proven that he can do it (in either era). More to the point, I do believe that if we transported 2013 Lebron to today's era that it'd be a reasonable assumption that he'd still maintain a fitness and possession volume advantage; 2000 Shaq is perhaps less clear though I also believe he'd fair at least as well if not better than Jokic in that respect. Edit: other versions of Shaq would be run off the floor.

I don’t know that it’d be correct to assume Jokic would have fitness issues more than other players. I actually think it’d be less. As goofy as he looks running around sometimes, he very rarely seems gassed at the end of a game to me. And his average distance covered per game is actually always amongst the top several centers in the NBA. I’d also note that the average distance covered per game for Jokic this season would’ve been top 25-50 in the league at *all* positions back in the first several years we have of tracking data (starting in 2013-2014). I actually think he’s one of the best conditioned big men in the NBA and that he’d have no problem with fitness in any era. Not sure if that was true in his earlier years, but I do think it is true with regards to his prime years.

Pretty good points. Always harder to argue with the tracking data. It still begs the question of why he doesn't play more. It's not like Denver has had #1 seed on lock down the last several years. I'm always going to default to the players who played more / did more because that's a provable thing. We're not left having to guess.

Last year they did pretty much have the 1 seed locked.

2020 he was 11th in minutes played
2021 he was 3rd in minutes played
2023 he was 9th in minutes played

2022 as stated the team did lock up the 1 in the west early. So you're upset he played less minutes in 2022? Still 18th btw.

And you're quoting 2020 and 2021 which were both short seasons. He's now had multiple playoff runs over 39 minutes per game. What am I missing?

[SelfishPlayer]

He's going to need at least as many rings as LeBron and Steph to enter this conversation.

If you think last year was Jokic's best year. You can argue he's got more rings than Curry and Lebron combined since Curry's peak was 2016 and Lebron's 2009.

What?

[Roy T]

Jokic averaged 39.5 minutes a game over 20 games in the playoffs just last year...Shaq averaged 43.5 in 2000. We're not talking about some insane difference here.

The difference might not be insane, but it’s very significant though.

[dhsilv2]

He's going to need at least as many rings as LeBron and Steph to enter this conversation.

If you think last year was Jokic's best year. You can argue he's got more rings than Curry and Lebron combined since Curry's peak was 2016 and Lebron's 2009.

What?

The topic is peak, which is generally a single season. What's confusing?

[dhsilv2]

Jokic averaged 39.5 minutes a game over 20 games in the playoffs just last year...Shaq averaged 43.5 in 2000. We're not talking about some insane difference here.

The difference might not be insane, but it’s very significant though.

Very? Don't get me wrong, Shaq played some crazy minutes in those playoffs. But in terms of relative to the league, Jokic's minutes might be even more impressive last post season. And that wasn't Jokic's highest minutes in a post season, that was Shaq's by a margin.

[SelfishPlayer]

If you think last year was Jokic's best year. You can argue he's got more rings than Curry and Lebron combined since Curry's peak was 2016 and Lebron's 2009.

What?

The topic is peak, which is generally a single season. What's confusing?

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

[dhsilv2]

What?

The topic is peak, which is generally a single season. What's confusing?

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.

[SelfishPlayer]

The topic is peak, which is generally a single season. What's confusing?

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.

[Pelly24]

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.

[CodeBreaker]

The topic is peak, which is generally a single season. What's confusing?

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.