yoyoboy wrote:Basketball discourse is so toxic. 90% of you guys don’t even seem like you really enjoy following the NBA. One guy can never be propped up without putting another guy down. Sure, Jokic is better than Embiid and unlike Joel, he has a title now. Why does that have to be brought up when simply appreciating the fact that this 300 pound incredibly skilled big is a joy to watch on the court? Everything Embiid does is just pointless to people because he doesn’t have a ring. It took until last year for so many of you to finally appreciate Joker and pretend like you weren’t trashing him the prior years for winning MVPs without greater playoff success, as if he wasn’t pretty much just as amazing of a player the previous couple years as well. Whether Embiid wins a championship or not, he’ll go down as one of the greatest players ever.
It was bad even before this, but man, guys like Skip Bayless and Stephen A Smith have just done irreparable damage to basketball discussion. Even in more hardcore circles, you can just see the negativity, generalities, obsession with rings, and overreactions seep in.
It's honestly really simple.
Harden was a superstar in his prime, Harden could carry you to 50+ wins by himself with enough shooters. Harden though is not an All Time player like Luka is simply because his TS% drops in the playoffs. Luka has maintained and sometimes raised his TS%.
And yes, Luka is an All Time player.
The same goes for Embiid and Jokic.
Even before the championship, Jokic was producing very efficiently in multiple playoffs despite missing key players and people were doubting him. His TS% in all playoff games combined is .614, he's that good.
Btw, both Harden and Embiid have had some very good playoffs before, but they were never consistent and both have had many bad ones.