Jokic is not the best in the world, and has been heavily overrated (NOW YOU CAN CHANGE VOTES)

[Statlanta]

You can pick any player as having performances like Jokic but no one has the consistency and health that he does not even the pinnacle of health in LeBron has been on that level.

Jokic is the bar for NBA greatness in the 2020s

[Jadoogar]

Has OP come back to respond?

[SFour]

he should be 4x consecutive MVP....with many more chances to rack up additional MVPs....this guy could legitimately end up with 6+ MVPs when it's all said and done, and that's just the regular season MVPs, not even considering the final MVPs.

[GrandTheftRondo]

I think Jokic puts to bed the ridiculous argument that Larry Bird wouldn’t have amounted to a thing these days.

[celtxman]

I've been saying this since his first mvp. He's an incredible system player, but he lacks competitive fire and toughness to be an ATG player. His MVP as a 6 seed will be locked at as THE worst mvp season in history. It'll make the Rose and Nash wins seem unanimous.

Jokic is a guy that needs a superstar like Murray to make his game work. He can't take over without that second punch on the perimeter the way other ATGs could. Now that Murray has been exposed, so has Jokic. What's funny is that those really watching told you this year's ago when he only got the sixth seed without him.

To me he is the third best player in the NBA - Luka and Embiid are comfortably ahead of him. Last year he took advantage of an injured field, and a weakened conference in a transition year. He had Murray playing like a superstar and to his credit got it done. But his awards don't match his greatness and in a few years everyone will come around to what I'm saying here right now.

100% agree, but social media will hate this take. Hold down the fort, because this is clear as day.

We all know there have seen miserable takes and threads in this forum. But this one is special.....shall we say unforgettable. Embarrassing and memorable all rolled into one -a permanent bookmark.

Read on Twitter

[Exp0sed]

“Jokic should have an asterisk for never beating Embiid in the playoffs” is right up there with “pets to games” and “he piston himself” for all time most laughable posts here.

I missed that, damn haha. who wrote that? that's genius!
Embiid needs to get out of the second rd first lmfao

fwiw, Embiid would need an ambulance at halftime if he'd try to keep up with playoff Jokic (and that's def a thing )

[Kawaii Leonard]

Curry is most obviously a system player,

Again, though, no. That's wrong.

If you choose to call him a system player, the term loses its meaning because that would mean EVERY star ever is a system player. Which is pointless.

Cherry pick much?

[tsherkin]

Curry is most obviously a system player,

Again, though, no. That's wrong.

If you choose to call him a system player, the term loses its meaning because that would mean EVERY star ever is a system player. Which is pointless.

Cherry pick much?

That... isn't what cherry picking means.

You're misusing the term system player in a fashion that has no actual substance. As you described, literally every star ever would be a system player the moment they benefit from advantageous offensive structure, which is ludicrous and a useless point in context of evaluation.

Steph proved his capabilities as a player prior to Kerr's arrival. Then his very presence on the court became the focus of how they conducted the team, operating by way of a trait he had to a greater degree than anyone else in the game. That doesn't make him a system player at all.

[Kawaii Leonard]

Again, though, no. That's wrong.

If you choose to call him a system player, the term loses its meaning because that would mean EVERY star ever is a system player. Which is pointless.

Cherry pick much?

That... isn't what cherry picking means.

You're misusing the term system player in a fashion that has no actual substance. As you described, literally every star ever would be a system player the moment they benefit from advantageous offensive structure, which is ludicrous and a useless point in context of evaluation.

Steph proved his capabilities as a player prior to Kerr's arrival. Then his very presence on the court became the focus of how they conducted the team, operating by way of a trait he had to a greater degree than anyone else in the game. That doesn't make him a system player at all.

You’re cherry picking what you think is consensus from your own opinion on terminology (system player).

He would be ringless without Kerr and his system. You can stop making yourself look funny.

Again, quite obviously a system player. If you need to understand why, please re-read my previous posts or argue with a wall if you can’t digest it. He wasn’t winning nothing till Kerr showed up and implemented what was clearly lacking for him to excel. You can be a star and a system player, idk who told you otherwise. Maybe you’re getting the term mixed with ‘role-player’.

[tsherkin]

He would be ringless without Kerr and his system. You can stop making yourself look funny.

Again, quite obviously a system player. If you need to understand why, please re-read my previous posts or argue with a wall if you can’t digest it. He wasn’t winning nothing till Kerr showed up and implemented what was clearly lacking for him to excel. You can be a star and a system player, idk who told you otherwise. Maybe you’re getting the term mixed with ‘role-player’.

None of that made sense. What you're talking about is not proper usage of the term "system player." You are specifically incorrect.

That Kerr helped enable the team isn't a commentary on Steph. It's a commentary on team dynamics, which happen on every team, ever. What are you even trying to say? "Oh no, Steph needed to add talent around him and a coach who wasn't a moron in order to win." Yes, how dare he, how different from... everyone else, ever.

2015, their first title, was also Draymond Green's first year as a starter and he was immediately 2nd in the DPOY vote. Barnes started full-time that year as well, enabling Green to shift to the 4, and they had a better bench. Like... context matters. The system didn't enable Steph.

This is as clownish a take as if you'd said the same of Jordan, who didn't win crap until Phil Jackson implemented the triangle... and Scottie Pippen became an All-Star.

Or that Shaq didn't win until Phil Jackson... but also until Kobe replaced Eddie Jones and Nick Van Exel as his lead guard.

"System player" is a phrase designed to describe a player who is able to produce only because of the system. That is demonstrably inaccurate with respect to Steph. "Good coaching" isn't the same thing as someone being a system player in the context of winning titles.

[Kawaii Leonard]

He would be ringless without Kerr and his system. You can stop making yourself look funny.

Again, quite obviously a system player. If you need to understand why, please re-read my previous posts or argue with a wall if you can’t digest it. He wasn’t winning nothing till Kerr showed up and implemented what was clearly lacking for him to excel. You can be a star and a system player, idk who told you otherwise. Maybe you’re getting the term mixed with ‘role-player’.

None of that made sense. What you're talking about is not proper usage of the term "system player." You are specifically incorrect.

That Kerr helped enable the team isn't a commentary on Steph. It's a commentary on team dynamics, which happen on every team, ever. What are you even trying to say? "Oh no, Steph needed to add talent around him and a coach who wasn't a moron in order to win." Yes, how dare he, how different from... everyone else, ever.

2015, their first title, was also Draymond Green's first year as a starter and he was immediately 2nd in the DPOY vote. Barnes started full-time that year as well, enabling Green to shift to the 4, and they had a better bench. Like... context matters. The system didn't enable Steph.

This is as clownish a take as if you'd said the same of Jordan, who didn't win crap until Phil Jackson implemented the triangle... and Scottie Pippen became an All-Star.

Or that Shaq didn't win until Phil Jackson... but also until Kobe replaced Eddie Jones and Nick Van Exel as his lead guard.

"System player" is a phrase designed to describe a player who is able to produce only because of the system. That is demonstrably inaccurate with respect to Steph. "Good coaching" isn't the same thing as someone being a system player in the context of winning titles.

Why are you so black and white? Please link me to where you’re getting spoon fed this definition.

1) you can be a system player and a star (other examples: John Stockton and Karl Malone, Kawhi, Klay)
2) system players can still produce outside of that system and be stars (example: Deron Williams or any pg that played under Thibs)
3) if you’re as good as Curry is, he will still put up the numbers but you are not going to win without the system Kerr tailor made and implemented
4) You really believe Jordan wasn’t going to win without Phil or the triangle?

[Iwasawitness]

Last year only one team in the west who was past 50 except Nuggets. As usual west is stacked last year.

West wasn't stacked last year at all. In fact, the 2023 season is noted for having one of the weakest Wests of the past 20+ years.

Phoenix has KD and booker,

And the fact that this was the best team in the West is pretty sad. The Suns did not get KD until later in the season, they didn't really have any chemistry and the fit wasn't there.

Lakers has Ad and lebron.

And?

Minnesota has Edwards, Kats, conley and gobert .

And they were considered a massive disappointment last year with many considering the Gobert trade a failure.

Who has playing that teams (pistons, nets and wizards) in 2007 ? Big names maybe but fading times of them.

The Nets had Kidd/Carter/Jefferson. The Pistons had Billups/Hamilton/Sheed/Webber. See how easy it is for me to just list names and ignore everything else? But again, unlike those teams you mentioned, one of these actually did win 50 games and was coming off *checks notes* back to back finals appearances and a ECF appearance the previous season. Yeah, what a weak team.

Which one was in his prime ? Best player of that teams wasnt playing. (Arenas)

Could you say any of 2007 teams(wizards, nets, pistons) are better than opponents of nuggets last year ?

Even minnesota can easily beat any of that teams with last year rotation.

Minnesota isn't beating the Pistons. I'm starting to wonder if you actually watched the NBA last year. You're trying to prop up the Suns and Minnesota as great teams. They weren't. They were heavily flawed.

No one's going to sit here and pretend that the 07 teams LeBron beat were elite. They weren't. You can make this argument and not take it to absurd levels. It's not hard.

[Woodsanity]

I've been saying this since his first mvp. He's an incredible system player, but he lacks competitive fire and toughness to be an ATG player. His MVP as a 6 seed will be locked at as THE worst mvp season in history. It'll make the Rose and Nash wins seem unanimous.

Jokic is a guy that needs a superstar like Murray to make his game work. He can't take over without that second punch on the perimeter the way other ATGs could. Now that Murray has been exposed, so has Jokic. What's funny is that those really watching told you this year's ago when he only got the sixth seed without him.

To me he is the third best player in the NBA - Luka and Embiid are comfortably ahead of him. Last year he took advantage of an injured field, and a weakened conference in a transition year. He had Murray playing like a superstar and to his credit got it done. But his awards don't match his greatness and in a few years everyone will come around to what I'm saying here right now.

100% agree, but social media will hate this take. Hold down the fort, because this is clear as day.

We all know there have seen miserable takes and threads in this forum. But this one is special.....shall we say unforgettable. Embarrassing and memorable all rolled into one -a permanent bookmark.

Read on Twitter

He will be back again when Joe L Embiid scores 50 against the Hornets.

[tsherkin]

Why are you so black and white? Please link me to where you’re getting spoon fed this definition.

Because that's how the term has been used, what it was designed to be used for in the first place. It was designed to crap on Utah, as it happens.

1) you can be a system player and a star (other examples: John Stockton and Karl Malone, Kawhi, Klay)

Kawhi isn't a system player by any definition.

3) if you’re as good as Curry is, he will still put up the numbers but you are not going to win without the system Kerr tailor made and implemented

That's an absolute, and not a given. We know he wasn't going to win with Mark Jackson coaching old-school basketball, sure. And we know that the defense was a huge part of Golden State's success even though that was obscured behind the offense. And we know that Draymond specifically was a huge part of that.

So again, calling Steph a system player as empty and useless a comment as it comes, because that means every star ever is a system player. That's why I'm harping on this, it's vapid nonsense.

4) You really believe Jordan wasn’t going to win without Phil or the triangle?

You really believe Steph was incapable of winning without Kerr specifically?

[Roger Murdock]

Cherry pick much?

That... isn't what cherry picking means.

You're misusing the term system player in a fashion that has no actual substance. As you described, literally every star ever would be a system player the moment they benefit from advantageous offensive structure, which is ludicrous and a useless point in context of evaluation.

Steph proved his capabilities as a player prior to Kerr's arrival. Then his very presence on the court became the focus of how they conducted the team, operating by way of a trait he had to a greater degree than anyone else in the game. That doesn't make him a system player at all.

He would be ringless without Kerr and his system. You can stop making yourself look funny.

Again, quite obviously a system player. If you need to understand why, please re-read my previous posts or argue with a wall if you can’t digest it. He wasn’t winning nothing till Kerr showed up and implemented what was clearly lacking for him to excel. You can be a star and a system player, idk who told you otherwise. Maybe you’re getting the term mixed with ‘role-player’.

Mark Jackson being too stupid to properly use Curry, Draymond, and Klay doesn’t mean they are system players. All players in the history of the game and history of sports look better when featured in a way that lets their skill sets shine.

If Curry is a product of the system then why aren’t there more Curry’s? He won 4 titles, shouldn’t people try to copy that.

[Kawaii Leonard]

Why are you so black and white? Please link me to where you’re getting spoon fed this definition.

Because that's how the term has been used, what it was designed to be used for in the first place. It was designed to crap on Utah, as it happens.

1) you can be a system player and a star (other examples: John Stockton and Karl Malone, Kawhi, Klay)

Kawhi isn't a system player by any definition.

3) if you’re as good as Curry is, he will still put up the numbers but you are not going to win without the system Kerr tailor made and implemented

That's an absolute, and not a given. We know he wasn't going to win with Mark Jackson coaching old-school basketball, sure. And we know that the defense was a huge part of Golden State's success even though that was obscured behind the offense. And we know that Draymond specifically was a huge part of that.

So again, calling Steph a system player as empty and useless a comment as it comes, because that means every star ever is a system player. That's why I'm harping on this, it's vapid nonsense.

4) You really believe Jordan wasn’t going to win without Phil or the triangle?

You really believe Steph was incapable of winning without Kerr specifically?

No getting through with you. This back and forth is completely pointless. Your last take clearly shows our difference of opinion on Curry and what we deem the definition of a system player, which you self-admittedly said as something to ‘crap’ on players - which it really isn’t if you understood how some stars are literally just that. I can smell the bias from here but please continue to harp on this with your take. Bro said vapid non-sense

[Kawaii Leonard]

That... isn't what cherry picking means.

You're misusing the term system player in a fashion that has no actual substance. As you described, literally every star ever would be a system player the moment they benefit from advantageous offensive structure, which is ludicrous and a useless point in context of evaluation.

Steph proved his capabilities as a player prior to Kerr's arrival. Then his very presence on the court became the focus of how they conducted the team, operating by way of a trait he had to a greater degree than anyone else in the game. That doesn't make him a system player at all.

He would be ringless without Kerr and his system. You can stop making yourself look funny.

Again, quite obviously a system player. If you need to understand why, please re-read my previous posts or argue with a wall if you can’t digest it. He wasn’t winning nothing till Kerr showed up and implemented what was clearly lacking for him to excel. You can be a star and a system player, idk who told you otherwise. Maybe you’re getting the term mixed with ‘role-player’.

Mark Jackson being too stupid to properly use Curry, Draymond, and Klay doesn’t mean they are system players. All players in the history of the game and history of sports look better when featured in a way that lets their skill sets shine.

If Curry is a product of the system then why aren’t there more Curry’s? He won 4 titles, shouldn’t people try to copy that.

Where did I say Curry is the product of the system? He’s been playing like this since his Davidson days.
Those 4 titles are all under Kerr and his system, I’m not sure what your point is.

[tsherkin]

Your last take clearly shows our difference of opinion on Curry and what we deem the definition of a system player, which you self-admittedly said as something to ‘crap’ on players - which it really isn’t if you understood how some stars are literally just that.

No, you're just wrong. Literally every star needs coaching support and teammate support in order to win a title. Complaining that someone had offensive structure which maximized his impact is like complaining that we aren't back to the 2001-era "let's all stand around like clowns while our guard pounds out a 20-second dribble isolation" ball. That'd be backwards movement.

In terms of winning, every star requires some structure which maximizes their individual and team impact if offensive success is what you want. You can look at any title and see that. How Rudy T changed Houston. How Phil + Tex changed Chicago and LA. How Pops impacts San Antonio. Some of the teams leaned more on defense and less on offensive success, but still had well-defined roles and systems, like the 04 Pistons (and they did it without a superstar offensive player, at that). It's just... how it works.

This back and forth is completely pointless.

Agreed, this is a waste of time, so I'll leave you to it.

[Roger Murdock]

He would be ringless without Kerr and his system. You can stop making yourself look funny.

Again, quite obviously a system player. If you need to understand why, please re-read my previous posts or argue with a wall if you can’t digest it. He wasn’t winning nothing till Kerr showed up and implemented what was clearly lacking for him to excel. You can be a star and a system player, idk who told you otherwise. Maybe you’re getting the term mixed with ‘role-player’.

Mark Jackson being too stupid to properly use Curry, Draymond, and Klay doesn’t mean they are system players. All players in the history of the game and history of sports look better when featured in a way that lets their skill sets shine.

If Curry is a product of the system then why aren’t there more Curry’s? He won 4 titles, shouldn’t people try to copy that.

Where did I say Curry is the product of the system? He’s been playing like this since his Davidson days.

Well no he hasn’t. The Mark Jackson team spammed PnR all game, Kerr uses a movement offense. At Davidson Curry transitioned from a SG to PG over the years.

[Kawaii Leonard]

Your last take clearly shows our difference of opinion on Curry and what we deem the definition of a system player, which you self-admittedly said as something to ‘crap’ on players - which it really isn’t if you understood how some stars are literally just that.

No, you're just wrong. Literally every star needs coaching support and teammate support in order to win a title. Complaining that someone had offensive structure which maximized his impact is like complaining that we aren't back to the 2001-era "let's all stand around like clowns while our guard pounds out a 20-second dribble isolation" ball. That'd be backwards movement.

In terms of winning, every star requires some structure which maximizes their individual and team impact if offensive success is what you want. You can look at any title and see that. How Rudy T changed Houston. How Phil + Tex changed Chicago and LA. How Pops impacts San Antonio. Some of the teams leaned more on defense and less on offensive success, but still had well-defined roles and systems, like the 04 Pistons (and they did it without a superstar offensive player, at that). It's just... how it works.

This back and forth is completely pointless.

Agreed, this is a waste of time, so I'll leave you to it.

Why are you still here? Move on buddy - we get it, you like apples to oranges and you think you’re always right when you can’t refute anything but state your take over terminology. I didn’t read a single word but go on if you must.