Jokic is the best player since Jordan

[VanWest82]

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).

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.

[ShootersShoot]

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.

How are they that much different at the moment? Shaq and penny made the finals at 23 yrs old together knocking out mj and scottie along the way...

Okc did the same with a 23 yr old KD and 22 yr old harden/wb knocking out the duncan spurs of all teams..

Current okc havent even done yet to what either of those teams accomplished...at least wait until okc makes the finals before making such declarations..

[NyKnicks1714]

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.

How are they that much different at the moment? Shaq and penny made the finals at 23 yrs old together knocking out mj and scottie along the way...

Okc did the same with a 23 yr old KD and 22 yr old harden/wb knocking out the duncan spurs of all teams..

Mainly because of all the assets they have. In addition to having an MVP-caliber player and two more future perennial all-stars, they have the means to go out and acquire a lot more.

(But again, this is not the point at all)

[ShootersShoot]

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.

How are they that much different at the moment? Shaq and penny made the finals at 23 yrs old together knocking out mj and scottie along the way...

Okc did the same with a 23 yr old KD and 22 yr old harden/wb knocking out the duncan spurs of all teams..

Mainly because of all the assets they have. In addition to having an MVP-caliber player and two more future perennial all-stars, they have the means to go out and acquire a lot more.

(But again, this is not the point at all)

I agree they look good, but nothing is guaranteed. If you say for jokic that he may end his career with one chip.. then the same can be said about sga/chet/jalen and not ending up with one at all.

I agree that ones career should be based on context and not just number of championships.

[NyKnicks1714]

How are they that much different at the moment? Shaq and penny made the finals at 23 yrs old together knocking out mj and scottie along the way...

Okc did the same with a 23 yr old KD and 22 yr old harden/wb knocking out the duncan spurs of all teams..

Mainly because of all the assets they have. In addition to having an MVP-caliber player and two more future perennial all-stars, they have the means to go out and acquire a lot more.

(But again, this is not the point at all)

I agree they look good, but nothing is guaranteed. If you say for jokic that he may end his career with one chip.. then the same can be said about sga/chet/jalen and not ending up with one at all.

Sure, but I'm just making the point that a lot of things outside of Jokic's control can help determine how many championships he ends up winning. OKC is just one of the more obvious examples.

[ShootersShoot]

Mainly because of all the assets they have. In addition to having an MVP-caliber player and two more future perennial all-stars, they have the means to go out and acquire a lot more.

(But again, this is not the point at all)

I agree they look good, but nothing is guaranteed. If you say for jokic that he may end his career with one chip.. then the same can be said about sga/chet/jalen and not ending up with one at all.

Sure, but I'm just making the point that a lot of things outside of Jokic's control can help determine how many championships he ends up winning. OKC is just one of the more obvious examples.

I understand your point and its a valid one. The thing abput any discussions involving jokic, at least we know he is more than capable of leading a team to the promised land.

[ScrantonBulls]

I agree with the last part that Denver has been overhyped because they haven't beaten a great team except they own 38-39 year old Lebron and AD, but I do not agree that the 2014 Spurs were better than Denver. Based off what? The player with the highest ppg that season was Tony Parker at 16.7 ppg. Denver's 3rd best Scorer MPJ scored 16 ppg. Yes the Spurs had a good defense but I'll take prime Jokic Murray MPJ and Gordon over 38 year old Duncan 23 year old Kawhi and Parker and Ginobili.

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. Those spurs took down prime Russ/MVP KD and the heatles. It didnt matter if parker was their highest scorer. Thats how good they were. I just don't see any reasoning that would suggest Denver has shown anything as impressive, and I don't think they are playing better basketball.

Nobody calls the 2014 Spurs one of the best teams this century but you. The 2011 Mavs took down the same teams you mentioned and swept 2x defending champ Lakers, but nobody calls them one of the best teams this century either. Maybe Lebron and KD are just overhyped and often came up small in the playoffs when faced with good defenses.

I also do not view Nuggets as one of the best teams this century either. They didn't beat anyone above a 4 seed last year. To me the best teams were 2017-2019 Warriors it was just unfair they added KD to a championship team. But KD outside of the Warriors has won nothing. Credit where credit is due to 2000-2002 Lakers the only team to threepeat this century. These are the best teams not Nuggets or Spurs.

It's crazy that certain players make people so upset that they just throw logic out the window. The 2014 Spurs were one of the best teams ever. Do you actually understand basketball, or does LeBron make you so upset that you can't think logically about the NBA? The 2014 Spurs were absurdly good. What do you struggle to understand about that team?

[lessthanjake]

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.

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.

[VanWest82]

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.

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.

[lessthanjake]

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.

I’d say he *does* play more though. Lots of players these days take a lot of games off over the course of the season, and Jokic rarely misses games. I think that speaks to his conditioning. He had the 9th most minutes in the league this season (and was 11th, 3rd, 18th, and 47th in the league in minutes played in the prior several seasons)!

[VanWest82]

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.

I’d say he *does* play more though. Lots of players these days take a lot of games off over the course of the season, and Jokic rarely misses games. I think that speaks to his conditioning. He had the 9th most minutes in the league this season (and was 11th, 3rd, 18th, and 47th in the league in minutes played in the prior several seasons)!

There's been a league-wide effort among team staffs to supress star player mins the last several years. A bunch of the guys have gone on record about it. Again, I think that's benefitted Jokic more than most. It's helping making him look like a fitness god as appose to him being one in any scenario, if that makes sense.

[lessthanjake]

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.

I’d say he *does* play more though. Lots of players these days take a lot of games off over the course of the season, and Jokic rarely misses games. I think that speaks to his conditioning. He had the 9th most minutes in the league this season (and was 11th, 3rd, 18th, and 47th in the league in minutes played in the prior several seasons)!

Those numbers include post season and there's been a league-wide effort among team staffs to supress star player mins the last several years. A bunch of the guys have gone on record about it. Again, I think that's benefitted Jokic more than most. It's what's making him look like a fitness god as appose to him being one in any scenario, if that makes sense.

I definitely don’t disagree about teams having done that (though I think the Nuggets not doing that almost at all for Jokic is telling regarding high confidence in his fitness). The minutes data I used there didn’t include playoffs though, I don’t think (I was just looking at the seasons’ league leaders on BBREF).

[VanWest82]

I’d say he *does* play more though. Lots of players these days take a lot of games off over the course of the season, and Jokic rarely misses games. I think that speaks to his conditioning. He had the 9th most minutes in the league this season (and was 11th, 3rd, 18th, and 47th in the league in minutes played in the prior several seasons)!

Those numbers include post season and there's been a league-wide effort among team staffs to supress star player mins the last several years. A bunch of the guys have gone on record about it. Again, I think that's benefitted Jokic more than most. It's what's making him look like a fitness god as appose to him being one in any scenario, if that makes sense.

I definitely don’t disagree about teams having done that (though I think the Nuggets not doing that almost at all for Jokic is telling regarding high confidence in his fitness). The minutes data I used there didn’t include playoffs though, I don’t think (I was just looking at the seasons’ league leaders on BBREF).

Yes, my bad on the post season inclusion - I tried to edit but you beat me to it lol.

[Pistol_Pete]

This is ridiculous. I love Joker, but Shaq was such an anomaly in this game. There was no answer to him. Pure dominance. Defensively, offensively…Joker needs a lot more years to catch up to him, for now, its not really up for debate. A ring this year and maybe another 2 in his career and then maybe we can have a discussion.

[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.

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.

Yup. It's a shame we can't truly know about the minutes load he could sustain. I'm confident that early on Pop got in the habit of playing Ginobili off from Duncan for fit reasons, and this led to a lower base line of minutes played which then contributed toward an assumption Ginobili could not play more...but I do think there was also truth to the idea that Ginobili couldn't sustain his play for as big a minutes as other top talents.

[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.

Qualifiers matter, right now he is unqualified...

You're still just talking about arbitrary rules you made up rather than talking about basketball.

[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.

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.

On what basis are you saying that Jokic has endurance issues other than the fact that he doesn't look to you like he should?

Re: Luka. Luka on the other hand has clear signs of running out of steam in games.

I understand why you'd expect Jokic to have similar issues, but I have not seen indicators of them.

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.

I think it's fine to acknowledge the difference in era minutes by emphasizing that more recent players generally have more impact per minute while playing less minutes.

But you said Jokic had an endurance issue, which implies he's not able to sustain his efforts as long as his competitors. So what evidence is there that Jokic is either a) avoiding big minutes, or b) decaying by minutes played, more than guys he's competing with?

[JustBuzzin]

Best player since Jordan with 1 championship?

Yeah cut that nonsense out. You're basically telling me if Joker retired today he's the 2nd best player all time with 1 championship.


Cmon folks think before you post.

[Doctor MJ]

Best player since Jordan with 1 championship?

Yeah cut that nonsense out. You're basically telling me if Joker retired today he's the 2nd best player all time with 1 championship.


Cmon folks think before you post.

You might follow your own advice. He's obviously talking about peak play rather than career.

I'm not saying he's right, only that it's a question of actual basketball specifics.

[SlimShady83]

OH DEAR LORD lmao

At least he said "Since Jordan" aka the goat