Is this the greatest peak of all-time?

[GYK]

leading the league in PER/WinShares/Per48/BPM/VORP has happened 26 of the 49 seasons since all 5 advanced metrics are available.

A lot of redundancy and collinearity because they basically count box scores. What makes these metrics advanced? Because that's what they are called on Basketball Reference?

I'd rather see winning.

Yes.

[hoosierdaddy34]

If you didn't have MJ in the all time discussion after his 88 season, you'd look like a moron now. Giannis didn't change ANYTHING when he won his title. He was already a 2x MVP and an all time great. This winning bias is just pathetic with nba fans. Winning is a team thing. It's why MJ never won a playoff series without another star. Neither did Magic. Neither did Bird. Neither did Shaq. Kareem never wins anything without an all time great point guard. Wilt needed super stars.

We're watching a GOAT tier offensive force and you're waiting for team results before you sit back and just embrace greatness? Man, life's too short to for that!

Hmmm we are talking about all time greats or historical context. And I said “he has to start beating and outplaying other greats and win a couple chips”. Like MJ did. That doesn’t condemn him for all time but I’m not listening to nonsense currently of him being an all time great. Putting up great regular season stats in the easiest era of all time to put up great stats doesn’t cut it. Meanwhile flaming out in the post season. Absolutely watch Jokic, enjoy his offensive game. But this is talk of a “historic peak” and without titles to go with it? It falls very flat. If you want to be one of the 15 or 20 greatest players. Better figure out how to win a couple chips. Otherwise you are in the Karl Malone and Charles Barkley area which is great, very commendable. But not one of the elite 10 to 15 players ever. It’s on him to change the narrative, again like MJ did.

It's never easy to dominate the league statistically. If anything this is the hardest era ever to do it as the talent pools have never been deeper. When we compare players statistically, we're comparing how much better they were than their peers in each individual season. This is why nobody talks per game counting stats. 2009 Lebron or 88 MJ or 04 KG are all some of the greatest peaks in NBA history. They also came without rings.

Jokic right now is having an insane and very much historical run.

Yes you are going to overhype Jokic. You are a stan, we get it. But the argument falls incredibly flat on most people. He’s not remotely at a historic level. And putting up stats while losing matchups, games and series to the likes of Giannis, Embiid, AD etc doesn’t equate to a historic performance. He needs to put up on the biggest stage and matchups or shut up.

[dhsilv2]

Hmmm we are talking about all time greats or historical context. And I said “he has to start beating and outplaying other greats and win a couple chips”. Like MJ did. That doesn’t condemn him for all time but I’m not listening to nonsense currently of him being an all time great. Putting up great regular season stats in the easiest era of all time to put up great stats doesn’t cut it. Meanwhile flaming out in the post season. Absolutely watch Jokic, enjoy his offensive game. But this is talk of a “historic peak” and without titles to go with it? It falls very flat. If you want to be one of the 15 or 20 greatest players. Better figure out how to win a couple chips. Otherwise you are in the Karl Malone and Charles Barkley area which is great, very commendable. But not one of the elite 10 to 15 players ever. It’s on him to change the narrative, again like MJ did.

It's never easy to dominate the league statistically. If anything this is the hardest era ever to do it as the talent pools have never been deeper. When we compare players statistically, we're comparing how much better they were than their peers in each individual season. This is why nobody talks per game counting stats. 2009 Lebron or 88 MJ or 04 KG are all some of the greatest peaks in NBA history. They also came without rings.

Jokic right now is having an insane and very much historical run.

Yes you are going to overhype Jokic. You are a stan, we get it. But the argument falls incredibly flat on most people. He’s not remotely at a historic level. And putting up stats while losing matchups, games and series to the likes of Giannis, Embiid, AD etc doesn’t equate to a historic performance. He needs to put up on the biggest stage and matchups or shut up.

I'm hardly a stan. I love watching greatness, nothing more or less. There is no comp in NBA history to play at the level Jokic is now who isn't seen as among the best to ever play. The guy has dominated in big games. You're trying to revise history and change reality. We saw this same crap with Giannis has he was having historic all time seasons and we got all this BS about how he couldn't do it in the playoffs. He gets Jrue and boom he wins a title. Idiots said Jordan couldn't win as a scoring champ, he wins 6 once Pippen becomes a star. Lebron didn't have the "clutch gene", he wins 4 on 3 different franchises. KG in 2004 has one of the greatest playoff and regular season run we've ever seen, but he loses. Idiots going on about how he's not good enough. He goes to boston and the greatest defense ever forms and he wins a title there. Some players are just going to not have the team to win...hopefully that isn't Jokic. But everyone knew they were seeing all time greats in those other players who were actually opening their eyes and paying attention. Don't be one of these people closing their eyes and not appreciating this is real time. Luka, Jokic, and Giannis are going to be in the discussion for the best 3 guys all in or near their prime playing in the league at once.

[hoosierdaddy34]

It's never easy to dominate the league statistically. If anything this is the hardest era ever to do it as the talent pools have never been deeper. When we compare players statistically, we're comparing how much better they were than their peers in each individual season. This is why nobody talks per game counting stats. 2009 Lebron or 88 MJ or 04 KG are all some of the greatest peaks in NBA history. They also came without rings.

Jokic right now is having an insane and very much historical run.

Yes you are going to overhype Jokic. You are a stan, we get it. But the argument falls incredibly flat on most people. He’s not remotely at a historic level. And putting up stats while losing matchups, games and series to the likes of Giannis, Embiid, AD etc doesn’t equate to a historic performance. He needs to put up on the biggest stage and matchups or shut up.

I'm hardly a stan. I love watching greatness, nothing more or less. There is no comp in NBA history to play at the level Jokic is now who isn't seen as among the best to ever play. The guy has dominated in big games. You're trying to revise history and change reality. We saw this same crap with Giannis has he was having historic all time seasons and we got all this BS about how he couldn't do it in the playoffs. He gets Jrue and boom he wins a title. Idiots said Jordan couldn't win as a scoring champ, he wins 6 once Pippen becomes a star. Lebron didn't have the "clutch gene", he wins 4 on 3 different franchises. KG in 2004 has one of the greatest playoff and regular season run we've ever seen, but he loses. Idiots going on about how he's not good enough. He goes to boston and the greatest defense ever forms and he wins a title there. Some players are just going to not have the team to win...hopefully that isn't Jokic. But everyone knew they were seeing all time greats in those other players who were actually opening their eyes and paying attention. Don't be one of these people closing their eyes and not appreciating this is real time. Luka, Jokic, and Giannis are going to be in the discussion for the best 3 guys all in or near their prime playing in the league at once.

Yes those that have done it get the credit for doing it. Those that haven’t, don’t, That's how it works and how it should work.

No one says you can’t enjoy the journey. By all means, do so.

[dhsilv2]

Yes you are going to overhype Jokic. You are a stan, we get it. But the argument falls incredibly flat on most people. He’s not remotely at a historic level. And putting up stats while losing matchups, games and series to the likes of Giannis, Embiid, AD etc doesn’t equate to a historic performance. He needs to put up on the biggest stage and matchups or shut up.

I'm hardly a stan. I love watching greatness, nothing more or less. There is no comp in NBA history to play at the level Jokic is now who isn't seen as among the best to ever play. The guy has dominated in big games. You're trying to revise history and change reality. We saw this same crap with Giannis has he was having historic all time seasons and we got all this BS about how he couldn't do it in the playoffs. He gets Jrue and boom he wins a title. Idiots said Jordan couldn't win as a scoring champ, he wins 6 once Pippen becomes a star. Lebron didn't have the "clutch gene", he wins 4 on 3 different franchises. KG in 2004 has one of the greatest playoff and regular season run we've ever seen, but he loses. Idiots going on about how he's not good enough. He goes to boston and the greatest defense ever forms and he wins a title there. Some players are just going to not have the team to win...hopefully that isn't Jokic. But everyone knew they were seeing all time greats in those other players who were actually opening their eyes and paying attention. Don't be one of these people closing their eyes and not appreciating this is real time. Luka, Jokic, and Giannis are going to be in the discussion for the best 3 guys all in or near their prime playing in the league at once.

Yes those that have done it get the credit for doing it. Those that haven’t, don’t, That's how it works and how it should work.

No one says you can’t enjoy the journey. By all means, do so.

At the end of the day, you can't tie team success to the individual beyond a point. Jokic has crossed that point to date.

This forum keeps wanting to engage in Skip level logical arguments on winning.

[hoosierdaddy34]

I'm hardly a stan. I love watching greatness, nothing more or less. There is no comp in NBA history to play at the level Jokic is now who isn't seen as among the best to ever play. The guy has dominated in big games. You're trying to revise history and change reality. We saw this same crap with Giannis has he was having historic all time seasons and we got all this BS about how he couldn't do it in the playoffs. He gets Jrue and boom he wins a title. Idiots said Jordan couldn't win as a scoring champ, he wins 6 once Pippen becomes a star. Lebron didn't have the "clutch gene", he wins 4 on 3 different franchises. KG in 2004 has one of the greatest playoff and regular season run we've ever seen, but he loses. Idiots going on about how he's not good enough. He goes to boston and the greatest defense ever forms and he wins a title there. Some players are just going to not have the team to win...hopefully that isn't Jokic. But everyone knew they were seeing all time greats in those other players who were actually opening their eyes and paying attention. Don't be one of these people closing their eyes and not appreciating this is real time. Luka, Jokic, and Giannis are going to be in the discussion for the best 3 guys all in or near their prime playing in the league at once.

Yes those that have done it get the credit for doing it. Those that haven’t, don’t, That's how it works and how it should work.

No one says you can’t enjoy the journey. By all means, do so.

At the end of the day, you can't tie team success to the individual beyond a point. Jokic has crossed that point to date.

This forum keeps wanting to engage in Skip level logical arguments on winning.

You absolutely need to when comparing the absolute greatest players/eras ever. You look at stats and awards, longevity and team performance. All of those are equally important.

[HMFFL]

Haven’t won anything

Lookin like he can be used as an example next time you wanna compare rings vs mvps

Rings are team accomplishments fwiw. I would never hold it against Jokic for not winning a title when he's played with 0 all-stars in his 8 year career. Hell, even guys like LeBron who I consider serious floor raisers and capable of carrying teams to titles played with all-stars and won nothing until he basically teamed up with 2 other all-stars and countless HOFers...

I will say this and I hope you soak it in. Jokic won't be relevant once he retires if he doesn't win a championship. History has proven it with other all time greats.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[LessEyeTest]

Haven’t won anything

Lookin like he can be used as an example next time you wanna compare rings vs mvps

Rings are team accomplishments fwiw. I would never hold it against Jokic for not winning a title when he's played with 0 all-stars in his 8 year career. Hell, even guys like LeBron who I consider serious floor raisers and capable of carrying teams to titles played with all-stars and won nothing until he basically teamed up with 2 other all-stars and countless HOFers...

I will say this and I hope you soak it in. Jokic won't be relevant once he retires if he doesn't win a championship. History has proven it with other all time greats.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

By the casuals? Sure. But anyone who can think critically about the situation will realize that no NBA superstar has ever gone an entire career without playing alongside another superstar. Jokic is 8 seasons into his career and no all-star teammate coming into view - if Gordon makes it that's based purely on Jokic raising his game from the journeyman bum he was into an all-star.

The experts (aka people paid to write their opinions) will view his advanced metrics + individual awards and realize he stacks up along all the other GOATs and greats. Easy to win a title when you have guys like Havlicek / Cousy, McHale / Parish, Abdul Jabbar / Worthy, Pippen/Rodman, Robinson/Manu/Parker, Kobe, Wade/Bosh, Gasol, etc.

Now compare that to ... Aaron Gordon.

[dhsilv2]

Yes those that have done it get the credit for doing it. Those that haven’t, don’t, That's how it works and how it should work.

No one says you can’t enjoy the journey. By all means, do so.

At the end of the day, you can't tie team success to the individual beyond a point. Jokic has crossed that point to date.

This forum keeps wanting to engage in Skip level logical arguments on winning.

You absolutely need to when comparing the absolute greatest players/eras ever. You look at stats and awards, longevity and team performance. All of those are equally important.

You have to look at the context of team results. Could Jordan have won with Jokic's teams to date? Of course not!

You most importantly, have to look at how these guys play, and what impact they are able to have on the game.

[hoosierdaddy34]

At the end of the day, you can't tie team success to the individual beyond a point. Jokic has crossed that point to date.

This forum keeps wanting to engage in Skip level logical arguments on winning.

You absolutely need to when comparing the absolute greatest players/eras ever. You look at stats and awards, longevity and team performance. All of those are equally important.

You have to look at the context of team results. Could Jordan have won with Jokic's teams to date? Of course not!

You most importantly, have to look at how these guys play, and what impact they are able to have on the game.

If you are looking for hypotheticals to strengthen your case? You don’t have a case.

[dhsilv2]

You absolutely need to when comparing the absolute greatest players/eras ever. You look at stats and awards, longevity and team performance. All of those are equally important.

You have to look at the context of team results. Could Jordan have won with Jokic's teams to date? Of course not!

You most importantly, have to look at how these guys play, and what impact they are able to have on the game.

If you are looking for hypotheticals to strengthen your case? You don’t have a case.

There's no comp to Jokic who didn't win a title in terms of level of play or impact. If we can't accept that we'll eventually have a player who had a career so great that they have real GOAT impact and results without a ring. We can't just dismiss it based on some arbitrary and meaningless line in the sand. Moses Malone won a ring, but I'm not ranking him over Chuck or Karl Malone. They were both better players.

[Eric Millegan]

Jokic is in 8th season. Jordan won 1st title in 7th season and LeBron 9th so pitting them both against Jokic, they only have 1 more title collectively than Jokic.

[ty 4191]

The stats Jokic is putting up today will take on new meaning once Jokic starts winning championships.

Bullsh**, totally LAZY argumentation. Specious and facile.

Michael Jordan through age 27, Playoffs, before they built a Dynasty around him:
-Playoffs (53 games)
-Team Record: 24-29
-Team Series Record: 5-6
-3 first round exits, including 2 first round sweeps
-Two ECF

Jordan's line: 36.2/6.9/6.7 on +4.7% rTS. Led all players those years in all advanced and traditional metrics in the playoffs.

Nikola Jokic through age 26, Playoffs:
-Playoffs: (48 games)
-Team Record: 21-27
-Team Series Record: 4-4
-1 first round exit
-1 WCF

Jokic's line: 26.4/11.5/6.4 on +4.1 rTS%. Top 3 player in all advanced and traditional metrics in the playoffs those 4 years.

Kevin Garnett through age 27, Playoffs:
-Playoffs: (47 games)
-Team Record: 17-30
-Team Series Record: 2-8
-7 first round exits
-1 WCF

Garnett's line: 23.3/13.4/5.0. 2nd in Defensive Rating in the playoffs, those years, among players with 2000 MP. RAPM ranks him as the second most impactful player of 2002-2007 period, overall, in the NBA.

Wilt Chamberlain through age 28, Playoffs:
-Playoffs: (47 games)
-Team Record: 21-26
-Team Series Record: 4-5
-Much shorter playoffs structure, so they're incompatible. Still:

Wilt's line: 33.4/26.0/3.2 on +4.7 tTS%. Clearly the MVP in the playoffs in all advanced and traditional box score metrics.

Oscar Robertson through age 31, Playoffs:
-Playoffs: (39 games)
-Team Record: 15-24
-Team Series Record: 2-6
-4 first round exits
-2 EDF

Oscar's playoff line: 29.7/9.3/9.4 on an astounding +8.2 rTS%. Clearly, a top 2-3 player overall in the playoffs in all advanced and traditional box score metrics. He had 8 triple doubles in those 39 games, and that's when the assist rule precluded assists if the player receiving the ball dribbled before he took the shot. Much harder to get assists back then vs. today.

What did Michael Jordan win before they built a Superteam around him, while also bringing in the greatest coach of all time?

What did Wilt win, while he had coaches (that got fired or resigned every year or so) 1960-1965? What did he win before he got great coaches, teammates, ownership, management around him?

Or maybe, just maybe, it's not how great YOU are, but how great your teammates, coaches, management, ownership are?

[WarriorGM]

...

Or maybe, just maybe, it's not how great YOU are, but how great your teammates, coaches, management, ownership are?

There's that list of yours and then you have guys like Russell Westbrook, Carmelo Anthony and Adrian Dantley. What are we to make of them?

Even the players on your list don't really refute the point. When it was believed they got better teammates, aside from Jordan they didn't really put the nagging criticisms of their nice stats but underwhelming results to rest. Considering the superteams they were on Wilt and KG probably underperformed championship expectations of those who were really high on their stats.

Without exception these guys also saw their numbers fall when they were on winning teams which indicates gaudy numbers are not required to win—indeed they may be a sign of not winning play—which calls into question why such gaudy numbers are celebrated to the extent that they are.

I keep hearing how there are two sides to the ball and what not but why is it that in comparison there is little discussion on how well a player improves his teammates? How come the question of how the player influences their teammates and team culture gets short shrift and it is just presumed teammates, coaches, management and ownership are totally separate?

[ropjhk]

The stats Jokic is putting up today will take on new meaning once Jokic starts winning championships.

Bullsh**, totally LAZY argumentation. Specious and facile.

Michael Jordan through age 27, Playoffs, before they built a Dynasty around him:
-Playoffs (53 games)
-Team Record: 24-29
-Team Series Record: 5-6
-3 first round exits, including 2 first round sweeps
-Two ECF

Jordan's line: 36.2/6.9/6.7 on +4.7% rTS. Led all players those years in all advanced and traditional metrics in the playoffs.

Nikola Jokic through age 26, Playoffs:
-Playoffs: (48 games)
-Team Record: 21-27
-Team Series Record: 4-4
-1 first round exit
-1 WCF

Jokic's line: 26.4/11.5/6.4 on +4.1 rTS%. Top 3 player in all advanced and traditional metrics in the playoffs those 4 years.

Kevin Garnett through age 27, Playoffs:
-Playoffs: (47 games)
-Team Record: 17-30
-Team Series Record: 2-8
-7 first round exits
-1 WCF

Garnett's line: 23.3/13.4/5.0. 2nd in Defensive Rating in the playoffs, those years, among players with 2000 MP. RAPM ranks him as the second most impactful player of 2002-2007 period, overall, in the NBA.

Wilt Chamberlain through age 28, Playoffs:
-Playoffs: (47 games)
-Team Record: 21-26
-Team Series Record: 4-5
-Much shorter playoffs structure, so they're incompatible. Still:

Wilt's line: 33.4/26.0/3.2 on +4.7 tTS%. Clearly the MVP in the playoffs in all advanced and traditional box score metrics.

Oscar Robertson through age 31, Playoffs:
-Playoffs: (39 games)
-Team Record: 15-24
-Team Series Record: 2-6
-4 first round exits
-2 EDF

Oscar's playoff line: 29.7/9.3/9.4 on an astounding +8.2 rTS%. Clearly, a top 2-3 player overall in the playoffs in all advanced and traditional box score metrics. He had 8 triple doubles in those 39 games, and that's when the assist rule precluded assists if the player receiving the ball dribbled before he took the shot. Much harder to get assists back then vs. today.

What did Michael Jordan win before they built a Superteam around him, while also bringing in the greatest coach of all time?

What did Wilt win, while he had coaches (that got fired or resigned every year or so) 1960-1965? What did he win before he got great coaches, teammates, ownership, management around him?

Or maybe, just maybe, it's not how great YOU are, but how great your teammates, coaches, management, ownership are?

Is Jokic more like Jordan or more like Westbrook? A championship (or lack thereof) will provide validation for one narrative over the other. That’s how it is and the world doesn’t care how butthurt that makes you.

[zimpy27]

Is Jokic the best player in the world or is Giannis?

[LessEyeTest]

Is Jokic the best player in the world or is Giannis?

Jokic, hands down. Check the advanced stats. He’s about as close to a modern Wilt as it gets.

[Black star]

I have never seen any player in my life VORP the way Jokic can. I see those RPMs flying around the court when he checks in and I know I am truly watching the greatest. My favorite part of the game is when he says it's RAPTORin' time and then he RAPTORs all over the opponents face.

He quite possibly has the greatest advanced stats peak of all-time but by most metrics that normal fans use like stats you can actually see or accolades he is still an all-time great peak but not the best.

Also a peak that doesn't involve a finals run gets automatically downgraded by a peak that has one. Players don't get credit for doing something they haven't done just because it seems logical that they could. Nobody who watched Lebron in 2009 would predict that once he got great teammates he could have a finals performance like the one he had in 2011 but it happened anyway.

[Young gun 6]

The title and "at least make finals" argument is so so flawed.

Examples previously used in this thread along with competition prior to 2011 make it near on impossible to even make the finals unless you have a loaded roster.

There are soo sooo many stacked teams which wasn't the case between 1970-2011. The argument is so simple and flawed that a ring is a must for Jokic right now to have the best 3 season offensive peak of all time (Which is categorically is..)

These are the sort of contenders that are formed these days (never been tougher to win a title than right now and it's basically impossible to carry your team to a title without at least 2 stars or 1 superstar next to your superstar player).

Ja/Bane/JJJ/Adams/Tyus/Brooks/Clarke
Booker/CP3/Bridges/Ayton/Cam J
Curry/Klay/Poole/Wiggins/Draymond
Zion/Ingram/CJ/JV/Herb/Murphy
Kawhi/PG/Powell/Zubac/Morris/Batum/Covington/Reggie
Ant/Gobert/KAT/D-Lo/McDaniels

then in the finals either:

Tatum/Brown/Horford/RW III/Smart/Brogdon/White/Williams
Emdiid/Harden/Maxey/Harris/Melton/Thybulle
Giannis/Jrue/Middleton/Brook/Portis/Allen/Connaughton
KD/Kyrie/Claxton/Simmons/Royce/Harris/Curry
Mitchell/Garland/Mobley/Ja-Fro/Levert/Love

Peak Lebron, Peak Jordan peak anyone with a scrub roster that Denver has had the last 2 years in playoffs would be lucky to beat one of those teams, let alone all of them.

[G_K_F]

Nah. This era is very soft.

It is but he would be prime Arvydas Sabonis if he played in the NBA in the 90’s. And that’s a compliment. Jokic is super talented.