Can Jokic finish top 10 all time without a championship?

[Hobo4President]

If he performs well enough in the playoffs against good teams and has enough post season games that his impact isn't noisy then sure, I think players can be top 10 without rings. Whether Jokic is good enough to be a top 10 player? I don't think so.

[dhsilv2]

I don't know if i belong in the general public but winning a ring(or more) as a star(saying this in advance in case someone mentions robert horry lol) is what solidifies a place in the top10.
You play to win the trophy.
Simply put, if he's a top10 player of all time, then he will have a ring when all is said and done.
If he doesn't win one, he's not.
I don't know any player who could be in the top10 without a ring. The closests i can think of are Elgin Baylor and Charles Barkley. I have none of them in my top15.

Well, if you want more KD to teh warriors teams, this is how you get them. Through most of NBA history being the best player would eventually get you a ring. That's not the case anymore. The league is too deep and too talented.

KD was an exception not the norm.
Plus he isn't top10 or close to it.

KG to the celtics. Chuck to the rockets. We can go on and on. This mentality of "winning" is everything leads to super teams. Do we really want a league like we had in the 80's where two super teams just dominated until another super team came along?

[dhsilv2]

Are there any all-timers who have never won that someone considers one of the 10 best ever? Barkley, Malone, Baylor, Ewing, Nash, CP3? Legit curious.

Sent from my LM-K500 using RealGM mobile app

I think the assumption here is he sustains his play and wins a couple more MVPs (or at least my understanding was), because 2 MVPs won't cut it for top 10.

4 MVPs and you gotta start talking about him in top 10, especially if there are extenuating circumstances like he's had the last couple years.

I've wondered the same for Giannis. 15 players have won 2 or more MVPs ever. Two of them have currently just entered their prime and are active (with goat levels of impact). It's not completely out of the question that either of Giannis or Jokic (or both) win one more MVP. Only 8 guys have ever won three or more, with one (Moses) barely hanging on to Top 20(?) status, especially among the "Basketball before 2015 didn't exist" types (analytics geeks). If one, or both, wins one more MVP do they enter locked Top 20 territory?

Sent from my LM-K500 using RealGM mobile app

Wait what analytics guy isn't an NBA historian too?

[dhsilv2]

Absolutely not

If individual stats are all that matters then just get rid of wins/losses and have the MVP trophy be the end all be all

You understand that TEAM stats and individual stats are separate?

[KGtabake]

Well, if you want more KD to teh warriors teams, this is how you get them. Through most of NBA history being the best player would eventually get you a ring. That's not the case anymore. The league is too deep and too talented.

KD was an exception not the norm.
Plus he isn't top10 or close to it.

KG to the celtics. Chuck to the rockets. We can go on and on. This mentality of "winning" is everything leads to super teams. Do we really want a league like we had in the 80's where two super teams just dominated until another super team came along?

I don't know what do you mean tbh
Bill Russell won more than anyone. He was surrounded by HoFers. Does that mean he isn't a top10 player?
MJ on the second three pit had both Pippen and Rodman. Does that make him less great?
KG got the DPOY when the Cs won. So what?

Hakeem, Dirk, Steph and Giannis won rings without superstar teammates, without being the favorites.
Every great player (and Jokic definitely is a great player) at some point in time overcomes the obstacles, the adversity etc. and wills his team above everybody.
Jokic must win a ring to start thinking if he gets into this conversation.
Dirk although a champion, isn't close to the top10 and he was amazing for almost 15 years.
Giannis is borderline top20.
That's how tough is to get into this conversation.
Longevity, production and ofc rings(talent is a no brainer for this) are crucial.

[reanimator]

Absolutely not

If individual stats are all that matters then just get rid of wins/losses and have the MVP trophy be the end all be all

You understand that TEAM stats and individual stats are separate?

I understand that individual stats are largely a function of the team so no

[dhsilv2]

KD was an exception not the norm.
Plus he isn't top10 or close to it.

KG to the celtics. Chuck to the rockets. We can go on and on. This mentality of "winning" is everything leads to super teams. Do we really want a league like we had in the 80's where two super teams just dominated until another super team came along?

I don't know what do you mean tbh
Bill Russell won more than anyone. He was surrounded by HoFers. Does that mean he isn't a top10 player?
MJ on the second three pit had both Pippen and Rodman. Does that make him less great?
KG got the DPOY when the Cs won. So what?

Hakeem, Dirk, Steph and Giannis won rings without superstar teammates, without being the favorites.
Every great player (and Jokic definitely is a great player) at some point in time overcomes the obstacles, the adversity etc. and wills his team above everybody.
Jokic must win a ring to start thinking if he gets into this conversation.
Dirk although a champion, isn't close to the top10 and he was amazing for almost 15 years.
Giannis is borderline top20.
That's how tough is to get into this conversation.
Longevity, production and ofc rings(talent is a no brainer for this) are crucial.

Winning requires teammates. No matter how great any individual player is, they cannot win alone. KG in 2004 played one of if not the greatest series in NBA history against the lakers. His team lost. But it wasn't for lack of him playing out of his mind. You can't win without teammates.

[dhsilv2]

Absolutely not

If individual stats are all that matters then just get rid of wins/losses and have the MVP trophy be the end all be all

You understand that TEAM stats and individual stats are separate?

I understand that individual stats are largely a function of the team so no

No team results are the summation of all individual's efforts. Individual stats are not limited to the team, they can be impacted by them.

[reanimator]

You understand that TEAM stats and individual stats are separate?

I understand that individual stats are largely a function of the team so no

No team results are the summation of all individual's efforts. Individual stats are not limited to the team, they can be impacted by them.

No and no but I'm glad we can agree to disagree.

[dhsilv2]

I understand that individual stats are largely a function of the team so no

No team results are the summation of all individual's efforts. Individual stats are not limited to the team, they can be impacted by them.

No and no but I'm glad we can agree to disagree.

Got it. Just replace Jordan with any old player and the TEAM does just as well.

[reanimator]

No team results are the summation of all individual's efforts. Individual stats are not limited to the team, they can be impacted by them.

No and no but I'm glad we can agree to disagree.

Got it. Just replace Jordan with any old player and the TEAM does just as well.

Not really sure how you surmised that from our exchange but good day

[hardenASG13]

Maybe take over a series one time and lead an upset for a round. Until then, this discussion is ridiculous. Chill out. I'm not a diehard fan of any other MVP candidate. I'm a grown up.

You mean like beating the NBA title favorite Clippers in 2020? Or is that not an upset?

He has been eliminated by the best team in his conference (or NBA 2x) each of the last 3 years, two of those years without his #2 option.

So you're basically saying "Why can't he beat the best team in the NBA without his 2nd best player?"...

I'll ignore the fact that the clippers didn't want to be in the bubble, pretty publicly and also struggled in round 1. Or the fact that they were the 2 seed, and not the title favorites. That was the Lakers, who easily beat Denver, and Milwaukee, who had the best record in the league and was the 1 seed. But live your dream.

Jokic was the leading scorer in 2 of the 7 games in the clippers series. He averaged 24ppg in the series. It's pretty good, and yes they did win. It doesn't make him an all time top 10 player though, or anything close to it. So yeah, that is what I mean.

[Cubbies2120]

Maybe take over a series one time and lead an upset for a round. Until then, this discussion is ridiculous. Chill out. I'm not a diehard fan of any other MVP candidate. I'm a grown up.

You mean like beating the NBA title favorite Clippers in 2020? Or is that not an upset?

He has been eliminated by the best team in his conference (or NBA 2x) each of the last 3 years, two of those years without his #2 option.

So you're basically saying "Why can't he beat the best team in the NBA without his 2nd best player?"...

I'll ignore the fact that the clippers didn't want to be in the bubble, pretty publicly and also struggled in round 1. Or the fact that they were the 2 seed, and not the title favorites. That was the Lakers, who easily beat Denver, and Milwaukee, who had the best record in the league and was the 1 seed. But live your dream.

Jokic was the leading scorer in 2 of the 7 games in the clippers series. He averaged 24ppg in the series. It's pretty good, and yes they did win. It doesn't make him an all time top 10 player though, or anything close to it. So yeah, that is what I mean.

Nah, I'm talking about the team that going into the series, was the odds-on favorite to win it all:

[August 31] After dispatching the Dallas Mavericks, the LA Clippers moved back into top spot at average odds of +260. Denver has also climbed ahead of Utah with their first round series heading to Game 7 on Tuesday

https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/nba/2020-nba-championship-odds/

And cute reduction "only 24 points a game", lets ignore that it was 24.4/13.4/6.5/1.4 on 52/39/81% shooting splits.

So, yes, he beat the title favorite Clippers (going into the series, the bookmakers had them as the favorite), and then lost to the team that ended up winning it all. Just like last year, only the best team in the NBA beat him (oh, and he was missing his #2 and #3). Anyone with room temp or higher IQ can recognize this

[bradybunch]

It feels like most of the Joker supporters on this board are not actually fans of the Denver Nuggets.

It's bizarre to see so many posters that have completely given up on the idea that the team can be successful, and are now simply rooting for individual accolades. 3 straight MVPs without a finals appearance would be disappointing to me as a fan, but whatever.

Considering that the super team era is behind us, there's no reason why the Nuggets can't be in the mix for the next few years to come if they truly have the "best player in the NBA". If he's that good, he shouldn't need that much help.

No team is winning without 2 allstar level players. And the nuggets don't have that. It's Jokic and two highly paid guys who haven't show they can sustain that kind of impact. And why should Jokic be different from Lebron? Lebron has countless fans who follow him anywhere he goes. Jokic is an all time great and he's going to have fans of him the player vs the team he's on.

Right now Denver is in second place. If they maintain that position for another month, it's pretty much a lock that they will send 2 players to the All star game.

No offense, but who the hell would be the second all-star? Lol.

[dhsilv2]

Maybe take over a series one time and lead an upset for a round. Until then, this discussion is ridiculous. Chill out. I'm not a diehard fan of any other MVP candidate. I'm a grown up.

You mean like beating the NBA title favorite Clippers in 2020? Or is that not an upset?

He has been eliminated by the best team in his conference (or NBA 2x) each of the last 3 years, two of those years without his #2 option.

So you're basically saying "Why can't he beat the best team in the NBA without his 2nd best player?"...

I'll ignore the fact that the clippers didn't want to be in the bubble, pretty publicly and also struggled in round 1. Or the fact that they were the 2 seed, and not the title favorites. That was the Lakers, who easily beat Denver, and Milwaukee, who had the best record in the league and was the 1 seed. But live your dream.

Jokic was the leading scorer in 2 of the 7 games in the clippers series. He averaged 24ppg in the series. It's pretty good, and yes they did win. It doesn't make him an all time top 10 player though, or anything close to it. So yeah, that is what I mean.

lol...and now we start the moving goal posts.

[Cubbies2120]

You mean like beating the NBA title favorite Clippers in 2020? Or is that not an upset?

He has been eliminated by the best team in his conference (or NBA 2x) each of the last 3 years, two of those years without his #2 option.

So you're basically saying "Why can't he beat the best team in the NBA without his 2nd best player?"...

I'll ignore the fact that the clippers didn't want to be in the bubble, pretty publicly and also struggled in round 1. Or the fact that they were the 2 seed, and not the title favorites. That was the Lakers, who easily beat Denver, and Milwaukee, who had the best record in the league and was the 1 seed. But live your dream.

Jokic was the leading scorer in 2 of the 7 games in the clippers series. He averaged 24ppg in the series. It's pretty good, and yes they did win. It doesn't make him an all time top 10 player though, or anything close to it. So yeah, that is what I mean.

lol...and now we start the moving goal posts.

Yep, first it was "upset a team", and he did (the favorites to win it all going into 2nd round of playoffs), then it became "Eh well he was only leading scorer twice"...he's gonna keep moving the goalposts as he sees fit, and if/when Jokic wins his 3rd MVP he'll keep moving them next it'll be he ONLY has one ring if/when he wins one...etc.

[arh1109]

They have a great shot any of the next 5 years so I wouldn't write them off yet.

[hardenASG13]

You mean like beating the NBA title favorite Clippers in 2020? Or is that not an upset?

He has been eliminated by the best team in his conference (or NBA 2x) each of the last 3 years, two of those years without his #2 option.

So you're basically saying "Why can't he beat the best team in the NBA without his 2nd best player?"...

I'll ignore the fact that the clippers didn't want to be in the bubble, pretty publicly and also struggled in round 1. Or the fact that they were the 2 seed, and not the title favorites. That was the Lakers, who easily beat Denver, and Milwaukee, who had the best record in the league and was the 1 seed. But live your dream.

Jokic was the leading scorer in 2 of the 7 games in the clippers series. He averaged 24ppg in the series. It's pretty good, and yes they did win. It doesn't make him an all time top 10 player though, or anything close to it. So yeah, that is what I mean.

lol...and now we start the moving goal posts.

Dude, you tried to argue there was a KG era in this thread. Nothings being moved. It wasn't a historic series from Jokic by any means. You think it was? Is that the trademark moment for his top 10 career haha? Putting up 24/13 in a second round series vs. the clippers in the bubble.

[hardenASG13]

I'll ignore the fact that the clippers didn't want to be in the bubble, pretty publicly and also struggled in round 1. Or the fact that they were the 2 seed, and not the title favorites. That was the Lakers, who easily beat Denver, and Milwaukee, who had the best record in the league and was the 1 seed. But live your dream.

Jokic was the leading scorer in 2 of the 7 games in the clippers series. He averaged 24ppg in the series. It's pretty good, and yes they did win. It doesn't make him an all time top 10 player though, or anything close to it. So yeah, that is what I mean.

lol...and now we start the moving goal posts.

Yep, first it was "upset a team", and he did (the favorites to win it all going into 2nd round of playoffs), then it became "Eh well he was only leading scorer twice"...he's gonna keep moving the goalposts as he sees fit, and if/when Jokic wins his 3rd MVP he'll keep moving them next it'll be he ONLY has one ring if/when he wins one...etc.

Nah it was never that, except in your head. I want to see him dominate a playoff series and beat a good team, one time. You're saying he's a top 10 player ever. His big win according to you here is beating the clippers in round 2 in the bubble. He averaged 24/13 in the series. That isn't that impressive or top 10 worthy, especially as his crowning achievement. That is and has been my point. Also that sportsbetting dime article cites pretty clearly that the clippers were not considered title favorites for much of that season, or entering the playoffs. It was the Lakers and the Bucks. The Bucks odds dropped as they were losing to Miami. You made the clippers out to sound like the title favorites all year and entering the playoffs. They werent.

[CharityStripe34]

I think the assumption here is he sustains his play and wins a couple more MVPs (or at least my understanding was), because 2 MVPs won't cut it for top 10.

4 MVPs and you gotta start talking about him in top 10, especially if there are extenuating circumstances like he's had the last couple years.

I've wondered the same for Giannis. 15 players have won 2 or more MVPs ever. Two of them have currently just entered their prime and are active (with goat levels of impact). It's not completely out of the question that either of Giannis or Jokic (or both) win one more MVP. Only 8 guys have ever won three or more, with one (Moses) barely hanging on to Top 20(?) status, especially among the "Basketball before 2015 didn't exist" types (analytics geeks). If one, or both, wins one more MVP do they enter locked Top 20 territory?

Sent from my LM-K500 using RealGM mobile app

Wait what analytics guy isn't an NBA historian too?

I was being facetious about the folks who get territorial about whichever era they feel was "the best" for hoops.

As for guys like Jokic and Gianni, I would think to be considered Top 10 by most would require them being able to lead a team to 2 Finals wins. Reading some "All-Time" lists across these forums, I've generally seen that "Top 25" lists (or so) have players that have at least won once during their careers. With some exceptions, I've never seen anyone ranked Top 10 with only one Finals win (or none).