Jokic is the best player since Jordan

[DonaldSanders]

I get this. But let’s also put into perspective what Jokic is currently doing. He’s going to win his 3rd MVP (in 4 years). LeBron is the only other guy since MJ to do that. The last 4 years he’s put up some of the best individual regular seasons we’ve ever seen statistically. And his stats in the playoffs make him look even better and more dominant.

Individually speaking, this 4 year run is as good if not better than any 4 year run by LeBron.

And the fact that you can even debate that, makes this thread a pretty legit discussion.

It's very close but I'm not quite there yet. I think Jokic is likely to pass LeBron's peak but I think he has to continue playing well in the post-season. I have no reason to believe he won't, so it might be a matter of time. Going against LeBron is that 2011 Finals which I can't see Jokic ever having anything like that. LeBron actually struggled with his shot in his first two Finals (yeah I get the first one had the Spurs defense), where Jokic nailed his first Finals. I can't imagine Jokic struggling w/ someone like Wade playing like a Finals MVP.

I think the postseason stuff games count matters, and I don't think it's a number of chips. We just need to see the same Joker we've been seeing.

[Prince187]

It’s either him or Shaq. Nobody else can compare to his peak offensive dominance.

[Raps in 4]

We've had Shaq, Duncan, LeBron, and Curry all dominate in the league since Jordan retired. I'd put him in the same discussion as Shaq, Duncan, and Curry, hell, you could even argue LeBron, but he's far from the only guy who hit this level.

[JonHeist]

this chubby slavic altitude merchant gets way too much credit for being up 2-0 against an 8 seed that is led by a 40-year-old

[lessthanjake]

The thing about the 2014 Spurs is really just that their bench unit torched teams. The Duncan/Parker-centric starting lineup didn’t have to be as good as in past years when the bench unit was genuinely elite. The 2014 Spurs had above a +10 net rating with Duncan and Parker both off the court, in the regular season and playoffs. Even if you look at what the team did without Duncan, Parker, and Kawhi, we’re still talking about a +8.6 net rating in regular season and playoffs. It actually goes slightly negative (-0.86) if you take Ginobili out too (still good when we’re talking minutes without the team’s best four players though!). The secret sauce really was just that the Spurs were +19.5 per 100 possessions in minutes with Ginobili on and Duncan/Parker/Kawhi all off. Ginobili and the bench mob just destroyed teams.

[zero rings]

There's been 23 championship teams this decade, they're probably in the middle in the 10-12 range. That's not really one of the best. The third best team would be one of the best. They're not the third best team this century.

Weird. Because someone who has put a lot more effort into analyzing the game than you have said they are exactly the 3rd best team of the century, and 7th best EVER.

10-12 of the last 23 years

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2012241

I don't really care about whatever weird nerd advanced stats they used to justify it, you probably wouldn't either if they had in fact argued against them being one of the best teams this century. They had literally no one scoring 17 ppg, that's unheard of and you can't say that about any other championship team this century so they may be one of the worst champions this century not best. Bottom line they aren't beating the best teams this century. Lebron is just usually a playoff choker so everyone wants to overhype the teams that beat him. If I remember correctly you're a Lebron homer and that's exactly what you're doing right now. I'm not going to engage with you anymore.

I’m not a Lebron fan, and the 2014 Spurs were one of the best teams ever. They didn’t need a 30 ppg scorer because they played high IQ ball and had multiple guys who could take over when needed.

I know you’re a big Luka stan, so maybe it’s hard for you to understand basketball impact beyond big box score numbers.

[ohmuri]

Jokic is playing amazing right now. He wouldnt be what he is in yesterdays league. Every big man would be in foul trouble by 1/2 because you would go at them every play until they get benched. Every team had a few they coudl throw at you and it would be battles to see which big would get in foul trouble first. Jokic doesnt have those worries, someone is not posting him up every time down the floor. This era teams got rid of all their bigs and Joker is flourishing. Sure he is skilled but he doesnt have Shaq, Mourning, Ewing, Yao, Duncan wearing him down during the game either. He is pretty amazing, Im not putting him as the best.

I mean its not like we're in the late 00's though when it comes to the depth of talent at the 5 spot. He's in his prime at the same time Joel Embiid is in his prime. He's also doing this while elite defensive bigs are also in their prime with guys like Gobert and AD. And even a guy like Giannis who is 6'11 with a long wingspan and is a great athlete. The depth of big man talent is pretty damn good right now.

And the reason there may be fewer of them it's because it's gotten more difficult for big men in the current league. They don't have to bruise every possesion, but most of them are out of the league because it's more difficult having to defend in space and scoring inside.

And with all that being said Jokic is a **** force, he would adapt perfectly to that style.

[G35]

He's more skilled and his peak is similar but he's going to need a few more rings before we can even have this discussion

Pretty sure OP is talking about just skill alone and he is right...

Jokic is one of the goats...

Hope this thread doesnt get derailed by people going BUT RINGZZZ...

Rings is a huge component of greatness, I mean why do you play game.

But taking the question as it stands, I think Jokic is better Lebron also. He didn't have to go ring shopping with multiple teams and forcing management to have to mortgage their future for the star of the day. Jokic is creating a culture of team play where the team is not just dependent on him for their success, even though we know he is the foundation.

Imo, Jokic is similar to Tim Duncan, where I give Duncan''s offensive rating an 8 and defensive rating a 10, while Jokic is a 10 offensively and around a 6 or 7 defensively. But they both have a team first mentality, can play within a system or if the team is slumping can carry the offense for stretches in a game.

What Jokic has to show now is longevity and sustained team success...I think with another title he is right there next to Hakeem and Shaq.....

[Doctor MJ]

If the 2014 Spurs faced the early 2000 Spurs teams that won championships would they win? Old Duncan vs Prime Duncan? Kawhi was 23 and was not the Kawhi who lead the Raptors to a championship. It just goes to show those Spurs weren't really that great that they gave him the Finals MVP. 28 year old Duncan or 38 year old Duncan?

It's sort of a weird debate but I'm being told Spurs are one of the best teams this century, I'm not even sure they were the best Spurs team this century.

Danny Green was awesome on that 2014 spurs. Parker and Manu...maybe not better. But Diaw was better than say Horry. That 2014 team was DEEP and talented everywhere. THat's far more important than top end talent more often than not. People really underrate that.

Are they beating Kobe and Shaq in 2003? The 2003 Spurs did. Prime Duncan was on God tier he really doesn't get enough credit as one of the GOATs.

That Spurs team had no prayer against a Shaq-Kobe team at their best. 2003 was the weakest of the Spur championships.

[Doctor MJ]

If the 2014 Spurs faced the early 2000 Spurs teams that won championships would they win? Old Duncan vs Prime Duncan? Kawhi was 23 and was not the Kawhi who lead the Raptors to a championship. It just goes to show those Spurs weren't really that great that they gave him the Finals MVP. 28 year old Duncan or 38 year old Duncan?

It's sort of a weird debate but I'm being told Spurs are one of the best teams this century, I'm not even sure they were the best Spurs team this century.

Yes they would, but I understand why this seems impossible to you.

The short answer is that the '90s & '00s Spurs won titles despite not choosing a great offensive strategy. They got away with it because their defense was great, but their offense actually improved as their top players aged because they focused on a perimeter-oriented scheme rather than continuing to assume that Duncan was their proper offensive foundation.

The 2007 spurs had gotten the offense going but just didn't have the depth or skill. Bowen was just a liability vs having Green and Leonard for example. Now the 99 or 03...those teams didn't grasp offense in way that wins.

Offense was still quite weak in 2007 compared to what it would become.

[ohmuri]

I'd agree about the topic being a bit prematute. But it's not uncommon as a fan topic to project the last champions getting the next one so until they lose that topic's gonna have more attention than say the Wolves winning the chip. And another ring already puts Jokic around top-10 level with a lot of career ahead of him, all in all premature but understandable.

[Doctor MJ]

The thing about the 2014 Spurs is really just that their bench unit torched teams. The Duncan/Parker-centric starting lineup didn’t have to be as good as in past years when the bench unit was genuinely elite. The 2014 Spurs had above a +10 net rating with Duncan and Parker both off the court, in the regular season and playoffs. Even if you look at what the team did without Duncan, Parker, and Kawhi, we’re still talking about a +8.6 net rating in regular season and playoffs. It actually goes slightly negative (-0.86) if you take Ginobili out too (still good when we’re talking minutes without the team’s best four players though!). The secret sauce really was just that the Spurs were +19.5 per 100 possessions in minutes with Ginobili on and Duncan/Parker/Kawhi all off. Ginobili and the bench mob just destroyed teams.

This absolutely a big part of it. The Spurs were the most fundamentally solid team top to bottom in 2014 that I think I've ever seen.

Re: secret sauce was Ginobili minutes. Yup, as was always the case in any championship after 1999. Ginobili was the least understood player of his era, and among those not understanding what Ginobili was bringing to the table was Pop until pretty far into Ginobili's career.

[QPR]

He's more skilled and his peak is similar but he's going to need a few more rings before we can even have this discussion

Pretty sure OP is talking about just skill alone and he is right...

Jokic is one of the goats...

Hope this thread doesnt get derailed by people going BUT RINGZZZ...

Rings is a huge component of greatness, I mean why do you play game.

But taking the question as it stands, I think Jokic is better Lebron also. He didn't have to go ring shopping with multiple teams and forcing management to have to mortgage their future for the star of the day. Jokic is creating a culture of team play where the team is not just dependent on him for their success, even though we know he is the foundation.

Imo, Jokic is similar to Tim Duncan, where I give Duncan''s offensive rating an 8 and defensive rating a 10, while Jokic is a 10 offensively and around a 6 or 7 defensively. But they both have a team first mentality, can play within a system or if the team is slumping can carry the offense for stretches in a game.

What Jokic has to show now is longevity and sustained team success...I think with another title he is right there next to Hakeem and Shaq.....

I love Timmy but if he's an 8 on offense then Jokic is a 15.

[dhsilv2]

Yes they would, but I understand why this seems impossible to you.

The short answer is that the '90s & '00s Spurs won titles despite not choosing a great offensive strategy. They got away with it because their defense was great, but their offense actually improved as their top players aged because they focused on a perimeter-oriented scheme rather than continuing to assume that Duncan was their proper offensive foundation.

The 2007 spurs had gotten the offense going but just didn't have the depth or skill. Bowen was just a liability vs having Green and Leonard for example. Now the 99 or 03...those teams didn't grasp offense in way that wins.

Offense was still quite weak in 2007 compared to what it would become.

They'd moved to letting tony and parker run that thing by 2005, by 2007 duncan was just their safety net! But I get your point vs 2014. Still...those two were apex themselves.

[ohmuri]

Just based on watching the 2 teams play. The 2014 spurs played beautiful basketball and were incredibly balanced. I dont view the Nuggets as one of the best teams ive seen this century. I think we happen to be in a weird era where there arent many established teams.

Don't know if this is exactly the topic to develop this thought of mine, but I think the rule changes in the draft, play-in, aprons etc. along with the new play-style it's made more difficult to be dominant. You can't stack the deck as much as you once could, more teams playing competitive basketball with more opportunities for surprises to happen and a tougher grind during the season.

In the game, with everyone being able to shoot the 3 and the constant changes in defense you can't hide people neither on offense nor defense like you could not that long ago. I mean, your best players still matter, but there's more of that being as good as your worst man. Which makes big 3s less efficient and more difficult building a complete team -Lakers being a pretty good example, I think LJ and AD are still pretty amazing, but you gotta be complete nowadays-. Those reasons and the greater variance with the 3-point makes it more difficult to be constantly dominant imo.

(Those Spurs were goooooood).

[bluemj32]

Idk that's a very bold statement. If we're measuring to MJ than win more rings than one. Curry, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe were pretty damn good

Sent from my Pixel 6 using RealGM mobile app

[SelfishPlayer]

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

[picc]

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.

[NZB2323]

The current lakers are going to get swept in the first round. I thought last years lakers were a top 4 team at start of playoffs. This year I think they are a bottom 4 playoff team. I don’t see your point - I’m aware they were in form for a few months late last season.

What do the 1994 rockets have to do with anything? That team won the title. What are you expecting from these Lakers? They are flat lining

My point is the Lakers last year were a good team and better than the 2007 Pistons. You can’t just judge teams by what seed they are and what number seeds they beat. By that logic the 1995 Rockets are the greatest team of all time because they beat a 3rd seed, 2nd seed, 1st seed, and 1st seed, but they’re also the worst champion of all time because they’re a 6th seed.

You judge teams based on their relativity to peers. We know for a fact these current Lakers are an average and ordinary NBA team in 2024, and we know for a fact the 2007 Pistons were a top level team in 2007.

If the teams ever faced off, the 2007 Pistons would have smoked these lakers; who were mostly in middle school at the time. And if they faced today, the Lakers would mop the floor with old retired players.

We don’t have a Time Machine. If we did; I bet the 1996 Rockets would suck today even though they performed great vs their peers. Whatever-point you are trying to make is meaningless. Everyone knows the talent level in todays league is considerably better than 2007.

The 2023 Lakers had the best record in the league after the Westbrook trade and the Pistons would have been the 4th seed in the West in 2007 and were 6th in Net Rtg.

53 wins doesn’t make you a top level team. They had 1 more win than the 5th seed in the West.

[Doctor MJ]

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

You're going to need to talk about actual basketball, rather than just counting something people who nothing about basketball can count as well as you do, to meaningfully enter this conversation.