RealGM

In no particular order, most people have Russell, Wilt, KAJ, Shaq, and Hakeem.
Arenas picked Bill Russel, do you agree? He also talked about the less competitiveness and AAU-like nature of 50s and 60s basketball.

Shaq and Hakeem. The other 3 will depend on how long Jokic can play at MVP level

Hakeem. He’s the most fringe case imo

Russell is the GOAT center, so not him.

I don’t know if Jokic is going to knock any of the T/5 centers out. The position is just that stacked

Public eye it is probably Russell or Hakeem because defence is not overly valued by the public past a certain point.

I am inclined to say none, but if he does maintain for a while, then Shaq feels like the most obvious analogy.

If anyone, then Shaq. It's not a given though, far from it.

Also, Arenas likely has less knowledge about the 1960s basketball than average PC Board poster.

1993Playoffs wrote:Hakeem. He’s the most fringe case imo

I tend to agree with this. Jokic is just one FMVP away from catching Hakeem who has the least amount of personal and team accolades. The next is Shaq, but Shaq has a personality and influence outside of basketball court that get him more exposure and publicity. In vacuum as pure players, I would say Russell.

70sFan wrote:If anyone, then Shaq. It's not a given though, far from it.

Also, Arenas likely has less knowledge about the 1960s basketball than average PC Board poster.

I think it’s debatable who can come off as more naive between Arenas and a certain poster on PC board (eg. Making an analogy to a theoretical 1821 league of 3’ circus dwarves)

Well, to be fair, Arenas and his teams never played much defense during his career so he may not understand it.

I feel pretty good that int the public sphere, that Jokic will surpass Hakeem.

In my opinion, he can definitely surpass Shaq and Wilt's career value, if he stays motivated/wants to play long enough.

Shaq is the obvious low hanging fruit due to his durability and his primarily offensive value, which Jokic compares favourably against.

Having said that, Shaq had clear defensive values as a paint protector in an era where post offence was important.

(Jokic is still tiers behind all 5 on that score)

70sFan wrote:If anyone, then Shaq. It's not a given though, far from it.

Also, Arenas likely has less knowledge about the 1960s basketball than average PC Board poster.

General Board Poster*

rrravenred wrote:Shaq is the obvious low hanging fruit due to his durability and his primarily offensive value, which Jokic compares favourably against.

Having said that, Shaq had clear defensive values as a paint protector in an era where post offence was important.

(Jokic is still tiers behind all 5 on that score)

Incredible people think Shaq is lower hanging than Dream. They both played over 1200 regular season games, a lot more than either Wilt or Russell. But Shaq won 32 playoff, 4 titles, 3 Finals MVPs compared to Hakeem's 16, 2, and 2.

dygaction wrote:

rrravenred wrote:Shaq is the obvious low hanging fruit due to his durability and his primarily offensive value, which Jokic compares favourably against.

Having said that, Shaq had clear defensive values as a paint protector in an era where post offence was important.

(Jokic is still tiers behind all 5 on that score)

Incredible people think Shaq is lower hanging than Dream. They both played over 1200 regular season games, a lot more than either Wilt or Russell. But Shaq won 32 playoff, 4 titles, 3 Finals MVPs compared to Hakeem's 16, 2, and 2.

Wait, are you telling me it is easier to win titles and playoff series with prime Kobe and Wade than with Kenny Smith and Rodney McCray? No kidding!

AEnigma wrote:

dygaction wrote:

rrravenred wrote:Shaq is the obvious low hanging fruit due to his durability and his primarily offensive value, which Jokic compares favourably against.

Having said that, Shaq had clear defensive values as a paint protector in an era where post offence was important.

(Jokic is still tiers behind all 5 on that score)

Incredible people think Shaq is lower hanging than Dream. They both played over 1200 regular season games, a lot more than either Wilt or Russell. But Shaq won 32 playoff, 4 titles, 3 Finals MVPs compared to Hakeem's 16, 2, and 2.

Wait, are you telling me it is easier to win titles and playoff series with prime Kobe and Wade than with Kenny Smith and Rodney McCray? No kidding!

Right, let's pretend Dream did not have Sampson, Drexler, Barkley, Pippen...
With you logic, Russell should be out for having an all-HOFer team; Harden can ask the same question to Magic as I am sure Kareem is better than Howard...

dygaction wrote:

AEnigma wrote:

dygaction wrote:Incredible people think Shaq is lower hanging than Dream. They both played over 1200 regular season games, a lot more than either Wilt or Russell. But Shaq won 32 playoff, 4 titles, 3 Finals MVPs compared to Hakeem's 16, 2, and 2.

Wait, are you telling me it is easier to win titles and playoff series with prime Kobe and Wade than with Kenny Smith and Rodney McCray? No kidding!

Right, let's pretend Dream did not have Sampson, Drexler, Barkley, Pippen...
With you logic, Russell should be out for having an all-HOFer team; Harden can ask the same question to Magic as I am sure Kareem is better than Howard...

2000 Kobe and 2005 Wade were better than any of those players save maybe 1995 Drexler, and then 2001-04 Kobe and 2006 Wade do not even compare.

You are not a serious person if you cannot see how he had the worst supporting talent of any top player. You want to bring up Scottie Pippen, guess what, I may as well bring up Gary Payton, Karl Malone… and hell, that is saying nothing about Steve Nash, Lebron James, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce…

It is not about number of hall-of-famers, it is about recognising which teams are adequate title support and which are clearly not. Ralph Sampson was not even as good as Eddie Jones, but apparently making the Finals with him was insufficient.

dygaction wrote:
Incredible people think Shaq is lower hanging than Dream. They both played over 1200 regular season games, a lot more than either Wilt or Russell. But Shaq won 32 playoff, 4 titles, 3 Finals MVPs compared to Hakeem's 16, 2, and 2.

Team accolade counting doesn't do it for me. But you do you.

For me, Hakeem's defence brings him up to par with Shaq's superior scoring and Dream's relative durability advantage takes him over the top.

(I'm not a massive booster for Dream's offence, regardless of how silly he made Robinson look)

It isn't inconceivable the correct answer is all centers and all bigs. If you forced me to only pick one it would be Wilt

AEnigma wrote:

dygaction wrote:

AEnigma wrote:Wait, are you telling me it is easier to win titles and playoff series with prime Kobe and Wade than with Kenny Smith and Rodney McCray? No kidding!

Right, let's pretend Dream did not have Sampson, Drexler, Barkley, Pippen...
With you logic, Russell should be out for having an all-HOFer team; Harden can ask the same question to Magic as I am sure Kareem is better than Howard...

2000 Kobe and 2005 Wade were better than any of those players save maybe 1995 Drexler, and then 2001-04 Kobe and 2006 Wade do not even compare.

You are not a serious person if you cannot see how he had the worst supporting talent of any top player. You want to bring up Scottie Pippen, guess what, I may as well bring up Gary Payton, Karl Malone… and hell, that is saying nothing about Steve Nash, Lebron James, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce…

It is not about number of hall-of-famers, it is about recognising which teams are adequate title support and which are clearly not. Ralph Sampson was not even as good as Eddie Jones, but apparently making the Finals with him was insufficient.

That testify how easy to win with prime Shaq, with 21yr old Kobe or 3rd year Wade, giving them enough room to operate and open shots. Dream never forced other teams to load bigs just to defend him.

Hilarious