Jokic is the best player since Jordan

[NZB2323]

I consider 1 singular year to be one's peak and multiple years to be one's prime. So do '00 Shaq specifically and then do Jokic's best year and THEN report back.

Shaq 2000: 57.8 TS%, 3.8 assists per game.

Jokic 2023: 70.1 TS%, 9.8 assists per game.

Also if Shaq played today teams could play zone defense, try hack-a-Shaq, flop, ect. Shaq wouldn’t dunk on every play and have a FG% of 100%.

Not what I asked. Also once again era, pace, etc. You guys like answering questions with things that have little relation. I didn't say he'd have a fg of 99.99%, use your brain. I implied that not many players today would be able to guard Shaq and dunks are 99.99% rate (a dunk can be missed). Back then teams literally stocked up and bigs to guard Shaq. Teams tried all they could back then, implementing various defenses, were overall tougher and couldn't stop him. You think smaller less stout defenders have a chance over someone 150 pounds heavier? Get real.

Zion is proof enough that Shaq would wreck this league. Stop overthinking things.

I agree Shaq would do well, like Zion, but in a playoff series if the Miami Heat use a zone on Shaq that could diminish his effectiveness.

Back then, zone defense was illegal, and we’ve seen the Miami Heat and the 2011 Mavs have a lot of success with it. Zone defense worked pretty well against Wilt in college. Shaq himself said it was easier for him in the NBA than in college because in college teams could play zone defense against him.

https://www.basketballnetwork.net/old-school/shaquille-oneal-on-why-it-was-easier-to-play-in-the-nba-than-in-college

[VanWest82]

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.

[Doctor MJ]

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).

Some good thoughts here.

I do think that a couple things are making it harder to have dominance and dynasties than in the past:

1. Free agency and player empowerment make it harder and harder to keep a larger core together. The 2014 Spurs weren't so good because they had more talent than everyone else, but because of how good they were at playing with each other, which is something you need continuity to achieve.

2. As you say, 3-point shot variance makes it harder to ensure that you beat worse opponents as reliably. Go cold at the wrong time, and you lose.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

If you want to argue that players back then would come in to today's game and win MVP because they played so much more than the weaklings of this generation, you can, but honestly I'm skeptical anyone actually thinks how it would play out.

[Ol Roy]

Jokic is what happens when you put the offensive skills of Larry Bird and Kevin McHale in a centers' body.

[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.

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.

Yeah, I think you and I are on the same page regarding Ginobili. I’ve come full circle on him in a way. I really hated the Spurs for over a decade. This was primarily because I’d wanted the Nash Suns to win a title and thereby usher in an era of more attractive basketball, but the Spurs kept beating them and I felt like they were dooming the NBA to more years of ugly basketball. Ironically, the more attractive basketball eventually came anyways, and the Spurs ended up being part of it, but my hatred for the Spurs lasted long after the underlying reason became irrelevant. During that period, the Spurs player I easily hated the most was Ginobili. But the reason for that really was just that things always seemed to go well for the Spurs when he was on the floor. So I basically hated him because I could intrinsically feel his massive impact, for a team that I rooted really strongly against. Looking back on it, I just have to respect him though, for the same basic reason I’d disliked him. It’s actually wild to look at some of the numbers on this. In perusing the data to get those 2014 numbers, I also looked up the Spurs RS+Playoffs net rating with Ginobili on and Duncan, Parker, and Kawhi off, from 2005 to 2017. It was +8.50! That would be a really high net rating for an all-time great superstar to have over a really long timeframe like that, but this was Ginobili doing it without the three best teammates he had. Obviously part of this is that he played limited minutes, and so we can’t assume he could’ve maintained that kind of success with a larger minute-load. But I really do wonder if Ginobili was secretly a Class A all-time great superstar that just wasn’t used as much or as well as he could’ve been.

[VanWest82]

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.

If you want to argue that players back then would come in to today's game and win MVP because they played so much more than the weaklings of this generation, you can, but honestly I'm skeptical anyone actually thinks how it would play out.

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.

[SelfishPlayer]

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.

Qualifiers matter, right now he is unqualified...

[Roger Murdock]

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.

The current Lakers are a 7-seed and had the 18th net rating. They arent good. They were good for a 2-3 month stretch last year.

[E-Balla]

The bolded seems like a generally accurate breakdown to me. But I think Jokic being in position, using his quick hands to disrupt plays, and being a dominant rebounder is very impactful defensively! As is the fact that he’s very good about getting back in transition—particularly compared to other big men. If you put weak defensive players around him, that’s not going to be enough to make the defense good. He’s not some elite defensive center that makes a defense great on his own. But he has qualities that make it quite possible (and indeed, not all that difficult) to have a good defense with him. The Nuggets have a good defense (not elite, but good), and they don’t actually even have a defensively-slanted roster (Gordon and KCP are defensive-focused, but Murray and Porter Jr. definitely are not, and they don’t have some notable defensive stopper on the bench).

Agree with everything but this. Peyton Watson is amazing. Probably the best defensive wing in the league at the rim and one of the best I've ever seen easily.

Yeah, that’s a fair point, and I did think about Peyton Watson and almost erased that line. He doesn’t get a lot of minutes though (which is why I didn’t quite think he qualified as “notable”), so it’s not like the 1980s Lakers having Michael Cooper coming off the bench with almost 30 mins a game or something. He’s definitely a very defense-slanted player though (and quite good at that aspect of the game). I think the general point remains about Denver though. They’ve managed to have a good defense without having a roster that’s actually slanted towards defense-focused players. It’s more like a balanced roster in terms of offense and defense. Which suggests to me that it’s not all that difficult to build a good defense around Jokic.

It's difficult because:

1. It took years of Malone having this core to develop a strategy that can hide Jokic effectively in the playoffs.

2. They basically took what the Warriors did with Curry in 2022 so someone else had to unlock it.

3. It only works because of how giant and long (pause) the Nuggets are and how smart all those guys are.

They're still not amazing defensively either, they're just not below average anymore.

[zero rings]

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.

Qualifiers matter, right now he is unqualified...

You’re analyzing basketball as if it were tennis. It’s nonsense.

[Rust_Cohle]

I can understand putting Lebron ahead of either guy in your host rankings. Longevity matters, so does actual hardware.

But peak prime? Jokic is best player in league since Jordan. They are a tier above the next best “guys at their peak prime” (Lebron Giannis Shaq) and levels above the tier below that (Durant KG Steph).

I don’t even think it’s close. He controls the game like no one else since Jordan, whereas to me the guys the tier below never controlled every game, they were more akin to unstoppable freight trains that could take over a game. It’s the difference between these guys for me.

So Jordan then

[NZB2323]

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.

The current Lakers are a 7-seed and had the 18th net rating. They arent good. They were good for a 2-3 month stretch last year.

Yeah, I’m not talking about the 2024 Lakers and I don’t know why you think I am. I’ve said 2023 Lakers in all of my posts. Also Jokic hasn’t beat the 2024 Lakers yet.

The 2023 Lakers had the best record in the league after the Westbrook trade and were 8-4 in the playoffs before facing the Nuggets.

[NyKnicks1714]

There's a chance Jokic is going to make a lot of fans rethink the use of championships as a metric for comparing players. This might be premature but if Presti pulls the trigger on a big trade or two this summer, we could be looking at a period where the next few to several championships are won by either OKC or Boston. And even though Jokic can probably be an All-star until 40, I don't think anyone expects him to play that long.

Jokic might retire with 3 or 4 championships, and he could also very well retire with 1. And a lot of what determines that is out of his control.

[NZB2323]

There's a chance Jokic is going to make a lot of fans rethink the use of championships as a metric for comparing players. This might be premature but if Presti pulls the trigger on a big trade or two this summer, we could be looking at a period where the next few to several championships are won by either OKC or Boston. And even though Jokic can probably be an All-star until 40, I don't think anyone expects him to play that long.

Jokic might retire with 3 or 4 championships, and he could also very well retire with 1. And a lot of what determines that is out of his control.

There have been superteams in every era. The 60s Celtics, the 80s Lakers/Celtics, the 90s Bulls, the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, the big 3 Celtics, the Heatles, the Warriors, ect. After the 2008 Finals Kobe called up Jordan and asked him how he could beat the Celtics and complained about how stacked the Celtics team was and Jordan said, “You don’t really have a choice. You have to beat them.”

We also thought the Shaq/Penny Magic, KD/Westbrook/Harden Thunder, and KD/Kyrie/Harden Nets would win multiple championships.

[NyKnicks1714]

There's a chance Jokic is going to make a lot of fans rethink the use of championships as a metric for comparing players. This might be premature but if Presti pulls the trigger on a big trade or two this summer, we could be looking at a period where the next few to several championships are won by either OKC or Boston. And even though Jokic can probably be an All-star until 40, I don't think anyone expects him to play that long.

Jokic might retire with 3 or 4 championships, and he could also very well retire with 1. And a lot of what determines that is out of his control.

There have been superteams in every era. The 60s Celtics, the 80s Lakers/Celtics, the 90s Bulls, the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, the big 3 Celtics, the Heatles, the Warriors, ect.

We also thought the Shaq/Penny Magic, KD/Westbrook/Harden Thunder, and KD/Kyrie/Harden Nets would win multiple championships.

This OKC team is different than the Magic, OKC1, and Brooklyn. They're already a top-tier team, they're young, and they have a crazy number of assets. It would take a lot for them not to be a great team for a while.

Not really the point though. I'm not predicting Jokic winds up with 1 ring, just saying it's very possible. And it makes no sense to take anything away from him if it's a result of OKC developing into a dynasty or something else of that nature.

[ChipotleWest]

There's a chance Jokic is going to make a lot of fans rethink the use of championships as a metric for comparing players. This might be premature but if Presti pulls the trigger on a big trade or two this summer, we could be looking at a period where the next few to several championships are won by either OKC or Boston. And even though Jokic can probably be an All-star until 40, I don't think anyone expects him to play that long.

Jokic might retire with 3 or 4 championships, and he could also very well retire with 1. And a lot of what determines that is out of his control.

There have been superteams in every era. The 60s Celtics, the 80s Lakers/Celtics, the 90s Bulls, the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, the big 3 Celtics, the Heatles, the Warriors, ect.

We also thought the Shaq/Penny Magic, KD/Westbrook/Harden Thunder, and KD/Kyrie/Harden Nets would win multiple championships.

This OKC team is different than the Magic, OKC1, and Brooklyn. They're already a top-tier team, they're young, and they have a crazy number of assets. It would take a lot for them not to be a great team for a while.

Not really the point though. I'm not predicting Jokic winds up with 1 ring, just saying it's very possible. And it makes no sense to take anything away from him if it's a result of OKC developing into a dynasty or something else of that nature.

Durant Harden and Westbrook were the #1 seed and they were all around 24 years old and they had made the Finals the year before that and the WCF the year before that. Definitely a top tier team until they traded Harden, they came back and got #2 seed without Harden.

[scrabbarista]

I agree with the OP that Jokic is the best since Jordan, but disagree that LeBron isn't on the same tier as both of them.

Then everyone else.

Just since Jordan, I mean.

[lessthanjake]

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.

If you want to argue that players back then would come in to today's game and win MVP because they played so much more than the weaklings of this generation, you can, but honestly I'm skeptical anyone actually thinks how it would play out.

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).

[Jaqua92]

Jokic is what happens when you put the offensive skills of Larry Bird and Kevin McHale in a centers' body.

Offensively, I don't think there is a single thing Bird does better than Jokic.

So, a better Larry Bird, inside McHale's body, and add about 50 pounds.