Are rings the primary thing that would keep Jokic from getting to the goat tier in your mind?

[FuShengTHEGreat]

I did. My conclusion is that you're sulking because you were definitively proved wrong and otherwise have nothing to offer to the broader conversation.

You started with the idea that to be good, he HAD to demand an individual defensive matchup. That doesn't make sense, and hasn't made sense for 70 years, particularly with a foul merchant like Embiid, but he was on Embiid anyway, as evidenced by 70sFan's video breakdown. You outright lied when 70s brought that up, and provided the video as reference. Your response was "Miss me with that," which of course was BS.

Then 70s asked you if you'd actually watched the game, and explained some history about centers not matching up, and your response was "I'm n9t figuring anything else out for you if you surely won't," which was vague and useless because you were basically trying to eject after having been proven wrong.

You damned right I'm still sulking about Jokics lack of willingness to confront his biggesr rival killing his squad in the 4th quarter lol. Him basically waving Embiid on to a uncontested transition layup as the last line of defense didnt prove otherwise.

So I'm so supposed to acknowledge his "video" as the gospel while mines gets skipped over? Lol

Yeah....i get it. Thanks for your "useful cheerleader like input.

Embiid was still schooling a overmatched Gordon as the game hung in the balance and Philly started to build the lead they wouldn't relinquish while Jokic'was on non threat Batum. "Video" shows that.

I love how you said that as you clearly didn't click said video.

Yes I watched the game and his video link and video footage of what I posted wasn't addressed either.

Even.

[mysticOscar]

If Jokic wins 6 rings before he retires, most ppl would have him in serious goat discussion

[benson13]

The Nuggets won 53 games. I also mentioned the team's dominance. Being on a historically good team does add a lot to the picture.
As I sad, I don't think it's a deal breaker.

Yeah, because it's too context-dependent, right? The 2000 Lakers were the best defense in the league, and Shaq was never a DPOY-level player. And that team was DEEP. Plus, they had an advantage that was still comparatively uncommon in terms of how they were able to deploy Horry, coupled to the spacing they had from Rice, Fisher, Horry, Kobe and so forth all operating around Shaq in a well-orchestrated offense which spaced well for the time and moved the ball especially well. And I didn't even add in Ron Harper, Rick Fox or B Shaw. So stuff like that plays in. Yeah, the Lakers won 67 games that year, but they had the tools for it.

2013 Lebron's Heat won 66 games, but he also had Wade, Bosh, Ray Allen, and Shane Battier.

1986 Bird's Celtics were stacked. DJ, Parish, Ainge, McHale in his first season after consecutive 6MOY awards, Bill Walton off the bench. Bird was amazing but those 67 wins came from that coupled to immense talent surrounding him.

87 Magic, same same. 65 wins, sure. But Kareem, Worthy, B Scott, Coop, Mychal Thompson, Kurt Rambis.

71 Kareem had Oscar Robertson and Bob Dandridge, to say nothing of the rest of the squad.

So it's a little different than what Jokic is working with when we're speaking of team results. It's between that and the 94 Rockets, since obviously Murray's postseason makes up a lot of ground.

It's worth noting that Jokic is dominating on O to a degree that Shaq never actually achieved. As you say, not a deal-breaker, but I think there is some space to remind the broader discussion that team achievements are rooted very, very heavily in contextual factors beyond individual player control.

Definitely. I consider guys like LeBron, Shaq, and Duncan players who could lead a team of kitchen and yard tools too 55 wins and the second round of the playoffs. I think that's the upper limit on where one great player can get you though. Even they have bad games.

If you want an all-time great team that expects double digit victories nightly then it needs to be really talented. That being said, being the legend leading that team can add to your legacy.

[SportsGuru08]

Being a mediocre defender is what would prevent me from calling him the GOAT center or even ranking him in the Top 5.

I would say he's an inverse of Bill Russell, but upon second thought that's not accurate. Russell was more competent offensively than Jokic is defensively.

Russell did manage to average over 20 PPG in several Finals and the Celtics won every time. This means Russell could increase his scoring without being a detriment to his team. Jokic will never be a lockdown defensive big man.

[tsherkin]

Definitely. I consider guys like LeBron, Shaq, and Duncan players who could lead a team of kitchen and yard tools too 55 wins and the second round of the playoffs. I think that's the upper limit on where one great player can get you though. Even they have bad games.

Yeah, that makes plenty of sense.

If you want an all-time great team that expects double digit victories nightly then it needs to be really talented. That being said, being the legend leading that team can add to your legacy.

Oh, for sure. You need great teams to build dynasties, after all.

[OhayoKD]

I think for me, time is the main barrier to him being in that conversation, as his career isn't quite long enough. More rings and accolades would ultimately help too, of course, but the level of play is pretty clearly there.

Defense is a thing. So is ball-handling. Jokic doesn't stack up statistically to Jabbar, James, or Russell and it's not hard to see why.

Definitely. I consider guys like LeBron, Shaq, and Duncan players who could lead a team of kitchen and yard tools too 55 wins and the second round of the playoffs. I think that's the upper limit on where one great player can get you though. Even they have bad games

Depends on what you're classifying as kitchen and yard tools, but seems you're just creating an artificial cap here. We have seen otherwise bad teams beat excellent opponents to win titles(1969, 2016). Shaq and duncan certainly are not the gold-standard in that regard either way.

There's a legit concern that he's defensively outmatched in this company (though there's a positionally-adjusted argument that he's close to Jordan, I suppose), so he'd have to maintain his considerable offensive peak over these peers for longer to be considered in their company.

I wonder.

Jordan's a somewhat overrated defender. Kareem never had DPOY in his rep. Other guys like Oscar and Wilt who got GOAT talk at one point or another to different degrees certainly weren't there (Wilt at least until after his primacy as a focal offensive hub was done) as high-end defenders.

Whatever his rep was, the Bucks defensive excellence from 70 to 74(at which point dandrige wasn't all that) in the regular-season and playoffs correlates with Kareem rather strongly in a way you can't really claim for Jordan and Chicago or Jokic and Denver(or even Lebron outside of the 2016 playoffs).

I also don't know about "never had it in his rep" considering his rookie self was being compared to Bill Russell.

[capfan33]

If DPOY had existed in 74 Kareem would be the odds on favorite to win it. Also could have potentially won the other 3 years but Wilt is probably a safer bet.

[AEnigma]

I generally agree with 1974 — although with awards voting back then, may well have gone to a guard or wing.

However, considering how that was the first year Kareem made first-team all-defence, and how he was left completely off the all-defensive teams in 1972 and 1973, I would not consider him a serious threat for the award in any other year.

[tsherkin]

Defense is a thing. So is ball-handling. Jokic doesn't stack up statistically to Jabbar, James, or Russell and it's not hard to see why.

He surely stacks up to them statistically, though. He certainly doesn't run with them defensively, and you won't find me MAKING the GOAT argument for Jokic at this point just yet, but he's in the neighborhood for sure, leastwise by level of play.

Whatever his rep was, the Bucks defensive excellence from 70 to 74(at which point dandrige wasn't all that) in the regular-season and playoffs correlates with Kareem rather strongly in a way you can't really claim for Jordan and Chicago or Jokic and Denver(or even Lebron outside of the 2016 playoffs).

Oh yes, Kareem was a good defender. He was a nasty rim protector, no question. I didn't mean to imply that he wasn't a good defender. But DPOY?

I also don't know about "never had it in his rep" considering his rookie self was being compared to Bill Russell.

Which was and remains an odd comparison.

[sp6r=underrated]

I have Lebron on a tier alone. The combination of peak and longevity is un-matched in history. And I'm very skeptical Jokic will be able to churn out enough elite years to reach Lebron's level given his late start (relative to Lebron). Lebron basically became an MVP level player at 21 and turned many historic seasons during his extremely long prime. I just don't think it is possible for Jokic to match that. So I think the GOAT tier is nearly impossible.

But I do think he could be the best on the 2nd tier of players.

[benson13]

Depends on what you're classifying as kitchen and yard tools, but seems you're just creating an artificial cap here. We have seen otherwise bad teams beat excellent opponents to win titles(1969, 2016). Shaq and duncan certainly are not the gold-standard in that regard either way.

Kitchen and yard tools essentially means any assortment of NBA players, and the team still sees some level of success. I would point out the 2001 season where Derek Anderson and an aging David Robinson were the Spurs' second best players, but they really only bowed out to a Lakers team that was really playing well. Duncan, LeBron, and Shaq in their primes are definitely the gold standard in that regard.

Is it an artificial cap? Maybe. The criteria I used was somewhat arbitrary, but you should get the gist of what I was saying. In the context of the thread, Jokic is that guy as well. His presence guarantees relevance.

[1993Playoffs]

Tough as a center who’s not great defensively to ever be called GOAT.

He’s a incredible offensive player, But so is LeBron while being a better defender with wayy better longevity

[OhayoKD]

Have been planning a reply on a similar kareem-related inquiry so may as well just do a 2 in one with the first part

What edges over Jokic does Kareem have that don't show up in the boxscore? I'd love to learn more about his game, and I don't want this post to come off as confrontational. Merry Christmas

Whatever his rep was, the Bucks defensive excellence from 70 to 74(at which point dandrige wasn't all that) in the regular-season and playoffs correlates with Kareem rather strongly in a way you can't really claim for Jordan and Chicago or Jokic and Denver(or even Lebron outside of the 2016 playoffs).

Oh yes, Kareem was a good defender. He was a nasty rim protector, no question. I didn't mean to imply that he wasn't a good defender. But DPOY?

I mean looking at the results...
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107818815#p107818815

Spoiler:

-> Bucks jump by 4 points defensively when they draft him(and dandridge who is averaging 30 minutes) going from bad to solidly above average
-> Bucks jump by jump another 3 points in 1971(kareem and dandrige both level up)
-> Bucks then stay -4 as Dandridge's minutes drop from 39 to 35 with Kareem averaging 8 more minutes
(Note, even though their raw rating is higher earlier, they might a bigger outlier in 1974 than earlier via standard deviations)

1974 is also the first year we get block data and Kareem's blocks and block percentage absolutely dwarfs his 2nd highest scoring teammate(even on a per-minute basis)(4% to 0.8,: 3.5 to 6) as do his rebounds/rebound rate(nearly twice as much) which together, from the biggest player on the team(from tracking and synergy stuff it seems smaller players tend to feed off bigger players for blocks) suggests he is far and away the best paint-protector on an excellent 4-year defense that seems to improve in the playoffs(no defensive rating, but we have point totals and they are lower scoring). Meanwhiile he is also reducing the effenciency of opposing all-stars by 3-points over said 4 years, and from accounts his milwaukee self is unusally mobile for a big(and maybe that plays into initial bill russell comparisons. We also have 70's film-tracking from his later less athletic self in 77 and he looks like a defensive monster in his worst games of that run.

Given how valuable paint-protection historically has been, the basic correlation of his arrival, and the mantainance as his best defensive teammate fell off, and the strong man d to go with all that, seems like in 74 at least he has a decent DPOY case(the award didn't exist at the time).

For comparative purposes, Jordan won dpoy getting a -2 next to a collection of defensive specialists(fell to average the next year). Lebron got 2nd anchoring a -5 in 2009 next to a defense-slanted cast(though trading for mo slightly hurt that)
and then fell to -3.5 with z falling off and ben wallace out(for my money Lebron has a solid case as the 2nd best defender that year after dwight), and the nuggets get a but worse defensively with jokic on the floor.

I have him a fair bit higher than the latter on that end and alot higher than the former FWIW.
 

[
Defense is a thing. So is ball-handling. Jokic doesn't stack up statistically to Jabbar, James, or Russell and it's not hard to see why.

He surely stacks up to them statistically, though. He certainly doesn't run with them defensively, and you won't find me MAKING the GOAT argument for Jokic at this point just yet, but he's in the neighborhood for sure, leastwise by level of play.

Well then I'd be interested in you playing devil's advocate and try to make that case.

Jokic's best looking real-world signal(2023) is matched by lebron rs-coasting in his 30's(and Kareem posts similar looking stuff a bunch) and waxed outright from the best stuff we have for that big 3(1977, 2009/2010, 69 and it's not as clean but i'd throw 72 and 74 there too).

Moreover, we saw an extended stretch of Jokic playing without his best teammates and it looked a hell of a lot worse from what we've seen from that trio in the regular season and the playoffs: Lebron goes 58-win pace without wade and kyrie, 11-0 without Mo-Williams, posts a +10 san PSRS in 2015. Kareem goes 62-win without Oscar, outscores an all-time team with Oscar injured, and carries a massive regular-season outlier within a game of a championship in spite of lucas getting hurt, and dandrige and oscar being shells. Russell's celtics stay the best team in the league when his best teammates miss significant time.

By RAPM, Jokic looks worse than embid and a peer for Giannis. The only major goat candidate with full data there dominates every sourced set we have for the last 30 years.

By on/off Jokic posts a slight .9 1-year advantage in 2023 over 2009 James, but that evaporates if you add playoff games to that sample because Jokic also happens to keep running nuetral/negative there. Any other frame and Lebron and a bunch of other players best him.

I will reiterate as I have before On/off does not have the stablity of RAPM or the inclusiveness/per-game sample of wowy and wowy-adjacent stuff but people have been very keen to use it so...

You can bring up Jokic's BPM or PER but that's not really any different from someone counting blocks, steals and contests, giving them 3, 1, and 4 points each and declaring Russell the king of numbers. As is, even with per-esque player preference, plenty of box metrics exist where Jokic isn't grading out as a clear top player post-prime Lebron, let alone all-time(and to be clear Lebron mostly cooks in the most correlative of those metrics I've seen).

Back to basketball....

If he can't run with them defensively and data which accounts for defensive impact consistently has him not on that level...I'd say that's a strong indicator his "level of play" is not actually on that level when you account for the other end of the court. Honestly even offensively I'm pretty skeptical Jokic is not just straight outproduced in a matchup against 2009 Lebron's regular-season(alot more ball-handling, drawing more defensive attention) nevermind when he turned on the heater in the postseason.

Even talking offense-only studs, I have a hard time coming up with a clear statistical justification to place him ahead of Magic who we saw cook minus Jabbar and led all-time offenses in multiple distinct systems under multiple coaches, made the finals with a skeleton crew in 91, and has, imo, the best cold-data portfolio of the 80's(best wowy signals, very much alive to look like a rapm king or co-king for the 80's).

The issue isn't a lack of data, it's that the data available paints him alot less favorably than what is consistently present for a modern player, as a peer for multiple contemporary, and then you have to consider the majority of nba history where what we have puts Russell as nigh unassailable and Kareem as proto-Lebron.

Furthermore, as you allude to, there is the lack of sustained data which, even from a peak/prime perspective, makes one peaking higher(under the premise that data is noisy and uncertainity is always there) statistically likelier with a player who has more years to throw in the hat and is looking better at earlier and later points(something which applies to all 3 in a comparison to Jokic). A player who has 10 "peak" calibre looking years is just more likely to "truly" peak higher than a player with "7"(and this is really what the value of RAPM is).

And as I touched on before, it doesn't help that when Jokic has handled situational hurdles(teammate injuries) his team doesn't do anywhere near as well as what we've seen repeatedly from those 3 in question(replication -> less likely to be a result of situation)

So we have a player who doesn't have much of anything hinting to himself as a murks the field outlier(Lebron has an abundance there, most of what we have of russell suggests he's an even bigger one, Kareem and Magic to a lesser degree), and also doesn't have anything suggesting he's a historically unusual metronome(Lebron has that in spades, kareem to a degree, magic and jordan may get that too depending on how the squared's stuff shakes out)

I don't think GOAT really has much point as a term if we are going to apply it that generously(and at this point, from a statistical perspective, i think there's only really 2 viable picks here even if you make it "prime" and not "career")

I also don't know about "never had it in his rep" considering his rookie self was being compared to Bill Russell.

Which was and remains an odd comparison.

[/quote]
Yeah, but it speaks to a high defensive rep for whatever that's worth. As said before, with Wilt bowing out and Walton not yet a factor, maybe the best dpoy argument of anyone in 1974(to go with a clear cut opoy one)

[OhayoKD]

Depends on what you're classifying as kitchen and yard tools, but seems you're just creating an artificial cap here. We have seen otherwise bad teams beat excellent opponents to win titles(1969, 2016). Shaq and duncan certainly are not the gold-standard in that regard either way.

Kitchen and yard tools essentially means any assortment of NBA players, and the team still see some level of success. I would point out the 2001 season where Derek Anderson and an aging David Robinson were the Spurs' second best players, but they really only bowed out to a Lakers team that was really playing well. Duncan, LeBron, and Shaq in their primes are definitely the gold standard in that regard.

I mean isolate-for-winning type data flatly suggests that no, there's levels to it.

We don't disagree about Duncan's help but the 03 Spurs were just not as good as the two examples cited and did not run into any sort of equivalent to the 69 Lakers or Knicks or the 2016 Warriors. This is what I mean by artificial cap, you are inserting an upper-limit around shaq/duncan where results(replicated across various contexts) suggest there are players who just broke clear of what they reached(repeatedly).

Is it an artificial cap? Maybe. The criteria I used was somewhat arbitrary, but you should get the gist of what I was saying. In the context of the thread, Jokic is that guy as well. His presence guarantees relevance.

Based on what? 2021 and 2022 happened. It's not that the nuggets lost, it's that they were blown to bits or losing to .500 opponents. We've seen "kitchen and yard tools"(at least based on what they do removing a player) sweep 60-win teams and take 67-win teams to 6, outscore one of the best teams ever(72 Lakers), and beat mergers of the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the league(1969 Warriors following a win against a knickerbocker core that won 2 championships in short order).

I don't understand the need to assume artificial parity. We have players who have correlatrd with outlier-looking team improvement and players who've done those outlier-looking things repeatedly(even stripped of teammate health). Said players happen to be able to carry defenses as strong paint-protectors

Let Jokic actually show evidence of being that guy before crowning him.

[DCasey91]

Does anyone have metrics data or advanced stuff for 21 and 22 seasons and how it stacks up with Jordan/LBJ/Kareem years as the gold standard (same with Shaq at a push).

It’s a hard to gauge because of personnel, age, pace etc etc factors to consider

Saying this as I still have a hard time wrapping my head around that team winning 47 games lol.

It’s not Lebron 09 60+ but my god that team was awful

Jokic basically shares the same traits as a poster mentioned above. Take a 4 random assortment and the team overall will perform well.

At one point in the season the Nuggets legitimately had the worst offence in the league and when Jokic was on they had the best of all time (something ridiculous like 125 at one stage).

[tsherkin]

-> Bucks jump by 4 points defensively when they draft him(and dandridge who is averaging 30 minutes) going from bad to solidly above average
-> Bucks jump by jump another 3 points in 1971(kareem and dandrige both level up)
-> Bucks then stay -4 as Dandridge's minutes drop from 39 to 35 with Kareem averaging 8 more minutes
(Note, even though their raw rating is higher earlier, they might a bigger outlier in 1974 than earlier via standard deviations)

TOTALLY DIDN'T OPEN A TAB FOR THIS AND FORGET ABOUT IT...

So yes, Milwaukee as a first-year team got notably better in their second season when they added KAJ and Bobby D. And 15 more games from Flynn Robinson, and didn't have a bunch of other guys rotating in and out of the lineup for a quarter to half a season. It's pretty clear that KAJ had a significant impact on the team.

Also, it's clear that I was mixing up years at the time when I was thinking about his Milwaukee stretch. I was very much thinking about Bill Walton's presence, and he wasn't even in the league for another half-decade at that point. I was also thinking about Nate Thurmond, but was also forgetting just how much of a shot-blocker Kareem was when he was younger.

For comparative purposes, Jordan won dpoy getting a -2 next to a collection of defensive specialists(fell to average the next year).

Yeah, I don't think Jordan deserved the DPOY, personally. I don't think he or Payton or any of those guys really did.

That said, I think I completely borked my evaluation of KAJ's early-career defense, so thanks for the reminder!