Better Player Right Now: Stephen Curry or Jokic

[michaelm]

Please, children? Really, incredibly condescending of you.

This is pretty simple. Let me break it down for you....

Look at their numbers the last two seasons, including the playoffs:

Would you take the 28/6/5 guy or the 27/12/8 guy?

I'd rather take the guy who puts up wins in the playoffs. Curry doesn't care about stats.

How many wins has Curry gotten without 1/3rd of his roster including both his costars? Oh that's right he can't win without a stacked roster.

I don’t recall Klay Thompson playing for two thirds of the most recent season, and find it amusing that the narrative in regard to Wiggins is now that he has made GSW stacked again rather than being the worst contract in the league whom GSW were stupid to take on; I always had great hopes for him at GSW myself.

Jokic may well be the better floor raiser but at the moment his achievements are largely hypothetical ie what he might do with better team mates/uninjured team mates etc. Until how he plays translates to play-off success it hasn’t done so. It will be a shame if the Nuggets can never put a good team around him, but one of the players who has made GSW “stacked” was picked at 35,

[righterwriter]

Clearly it's Jokic. We just need to imagine how good he'd be in the playoffs with better teammates, rather than look at the reality of him and his teams consistently getting blown away in seven game series.

Leading a team to winning a ring four times isn't worth that much, if you consider how good Curry's teams were. Putting up good advanced stats in the regular season on a less talented roster is the best determinant of which guy is more valuable.

In today's league the most important players to guide their teams to the ring are big guys. It's why Embiid, Jokic, and Gobert have so many finals appearances and championships. You simply can't game plan around a seven footer with a devastating interior game.

[HotRocks34]

Jokic

[Hobo4President]

I stopped paying attention to this thread after my initial post (basically saying pick your poison, they're 2 of the clear best players/leaders in the NBA), but please children. When will you learn? Curry just got done wiping the floor with the Nuggets coming directly off of a month long injury in just 30 mpg from the bench. Then he went on to do the same against elite D after elite D en route to his 4th title and a Finals MVP. Remember, this was the best player in the league during the last few months of 2021 and the first few months of this season before he had his shooting slump that took him out as the very clear front-runner for MVP up until late January. Yes, he is on that level lol.

Please, children? Really, incredibly condescending of you.

This is pretty simple. Let me break it down for you....

Look at their numbers the last two seasons, including the playoffs:

Would you take the 28/6/5 guy or the 27/12/8 guy?

I'd rather take the guy who puts up wins in the playoffs. Curry doesn't care about stats.

This is why the winning argument is so bad. You're basically admitting if Jokic had a better team you'd rate him higher and if Curry had a worse team you'd rate him lower. Unless, of course, you're working backwards from a conclusion (which I'm convinced most people who make this point are)

[michaelm]

It IS laughable.

Yes, people. Jokic is that tremendous. Curry is not on his level (anymore). Period.

I stopped paying attention to this thread after my initial post (basically saying pick your poison, they're 2 of the clear best players/leaders in the NBA), but please children. When will you learn? Curry just got done wiping the floor with the Nuggets coming directly off of a month long injury in just 30 mpg from the bench. Then he went on to do the same against elite D after elite D en route to his 4th title and a Finals MVP. Remember, this was the best player in the league during the last few months of 2021 and the first few months of this season before he had his shooting slump that took him out as the very clear front-runner for MVP up until late January. Yes, he is on that level lol.

Please, children? Really, incredibly condescending of you.

This is pretty simple. Let me break it down for you....

Look at their numbers the last two seasons, including the playoffs:

Would you take the 28/6/5 guy or the 27/12/8 guy?

No one can argue that Jokic isn’t one of the top players in the NBA along with Curry.

As I and others have said how far Curry can take a team isn’t theoretical however, and I don’t recall much talk that the current GSW roster was stacked at the start of the season. We do know for certain that Curry’s stats translate into titles, and that if you do put good players next to him they thrive, even highly elite players don’t have to sacrifice too much of their game. Jokic might have superficially worse stats which are more valuable for his team with better team-mates.

[durden_tyler]

Jokic has not proven that he can lead his team to worthy Ws and championships yet. Curry by a mile.

[WarriorGM]

Please, children? Really, incredibly condescending of you.

This is pretty simple. Let me break it down for you....

Look at their numbers the last two seasons, including the playoffs:

Would you take the 28/6/5 guy or the 27/12/8 guy?

I'd rather take the guy who puts up wins in the playoffs. Curry doesn't care about stats.

This is why the winning argument is so bad. You're basically admitting if Jokic had a better team you'd rate him higher and if Curry had a worse team you'd rate him lower. Unless, of course, you're working backwards from a conclusion (which I'm convinced most people who make this point are)

On the contrary it shows why the winning argument is so good. Didn't Curry's team have the worst record in the league without him a mere two seasons ago? But now two years later here he is again leading them to a championship. How would you have predicted that? I'll tell you how: his history of winning.

[michaelm]

Please, children? Really, incredibly condescending of you.

This is pretty simple. Let me break it down for you....

Look at their numbers the last two seasons, including the playoffs:

Would you take the 28/6/5 guy or the 27/12/8 guy?

I'd rather take the guy who puts up wins in the playoffs. Curry doesn't care about stats.

This is why the winning argument is so bad. You're basically admitting if Jokic had a better team you'd rate him higher and if Curry had a worse team you'd rate him lower. Unless, of course, you're working backwards from a conclusion (which I'm convinced most people who make this point are)

Most GSW fans rate Jokic, a former mod and one of the most prolific posters on the GSW board considers him to be far and away the best player in the league.

Winning is important however, or are you suggesting the NBA is a competition to see who can generate the best individual stats ?. Curry has copped far more trenchant criticism than Jokic ever has when he/GSW have lost, and that was for losing in finals series. I also don’t recall many Jokic exposed threads, while at one time there were often multiple Curry detraction threads on the front page of this forum.

Bottom line is that we do know for certain Jokic is a great floor raiser, perhaps the best in the NBA now LeBron is in his late 30s, although Giannis might be able to do something equivalent with this roster while not being targetable on defense. The latter is the problem, we don’t know if Jokic can still be targeted deep in the play-offs even with better players around him, or whether his playing style in general translates to the very highest level. Maybe it would be an indictment of the current NBA and the focus on the perimeter in the current game if his game doesn’t translate, but we do know that Curry’s does, including that Curry teams can be elite defensively in the play-offs and that targeting him defensively as he constantly is hasn’t worked in 4 title runs.

[michaelm]

The children are the ones that insist a guy did something all by himself in a team game, you must be a Lebron fan.

Clearly not insisting that what so ever. But he came off the bench and absolutely torched the life out of any outside chance Denver may have thought they had with him coming fresh off the injury to the playoffs. I even specifically remember the poll on this site being 40/60 that the Nuggets would win the series before G1. I obviously knew better than that due to their team dynamics (a more realistic representation would have been 10/90), but I'm used to seeing Curry and the Warriors underrated. I'm a Jokic fan as well. It's just absurd to pretend that he's on some other tier as a player than Curry. We just saw - again - what Curry does when he has a functioning supporting cast (even if they don't look very functional in the weeks he missed), and it's why he's in Top 10 All Time discussions despite having nowhere near the longevity of many in that realm.

Let's put it simply. If you have a take that thinks, "Oh! DRoseChi just made a great point concerning Curry!". You might want to reevaluate your position (and question where you went wrong to land in this predicament).

Let's put this simply, Jokic's team lost 5 rotation players to injury this year including his 2 costars Curry lost 1 costar and missed the playoffs, so yes I would say that Jokic is clearly on another tier if he can carry a worse roster to a considerably better record without 1/3rd of his roster available. To say he isn't says more about you than anything.

Again, you are the one dealing in could’ves, would’ves, should’ves while Curry has the runs on the board. Get back to us when Jokic performs with a healthier or better team around him, which he may well do.

[Hobo4President]

I'd rather take the guy who puts up wins in the playoffs. Curry doesn't care about stats.

This is why the winning argument is so bad. You're basically admitting if Jokic had a better team you'd rate him higher and if Curry had a worse team you'd rate him lower. Unless, of course, you're working backwards from a conclusion (which I'm convinced most people who make this point are)

On the contrary it shows why the winning argument is so good. Didn't Curry's team have the worst record in the league without him a mere two seasons ago? But now two years later here he is again leading them to a championship. How would you have predicted that? I'll tell you how: his history of winning.

That Warriors roster was absolute garbage though. Here is their players who played >20 games in order of most games played to the least

Glenn Robinson III
Draymond
Cauley-Stein
Damion Lee
D'angelo Russel
Eric Paschall
Marquese Chriss

I've actually been arguing Steph has been one of the most impactful players and was deserving of the MVP conversation this season when everyone was **** on him for his slump but the simple fact is winning basketball games is so dependent on your team that using it as a reason for rating players doesn't really make sense.

I'd rather take the guy who puts up wins in the playoffs. Curry doesn't care about stats.

This is why the winning argument is so bad. You're basically admitting if Jokic had a better team you'd rate him higher and if Curry had a worse team you'd rate him lower. Unless, of course, you're working backwards from a conclusion (which I'm convinced most people who make this point are)

Most GSW fans rate Jokic, a former mod and one of the most prolific posters on the GSW board considers him to be far and away the best player in the league.

Winning is important however, or are you suggesting the NBA is a competition to see who can generate the best individual stats ?. Curry has copped far more trenchant criticism than Jokic ever has when he/GSW have lost, and that was for losing in finals series. I also don’t recall many Jokic exposed threads, while at one time there were often multiple Curry detraction threads on the front page of this forum.

Bottom line is that we do know for certain Jokic is a great floor raiser, perhaps the best in the NBA now LeBron is in his late 30s, although Giannis might be able to do something equivalent with this roster while not being targetable on defense. The latter is the problem, we don’t know if Jokic can still be targeted deep in the play-offs even with better players around him, or whether his playing style in general translates to the very highest level. Maybe it would be an indictment of the current NBA and the focus on the perimeter in the current game if his game doesn’t translate, but we do know that Curry’s does, including that Curry teams can be elite defensively in the play-offs and that targeting him defensively as he constantly is hasn’t worked in 4 title runs.

Nope. Winning is the most important thing in any competitive sport but I think it's inadequate as a way to rate players in basketball, which is why I stick to rating players based on their performance. If Steph lost this finals while playing exactly the same my rating of him doesn't change at all.

[michaelm]

This is why the winning argument is so bad. You're basically admitting if Jokic had a better team you'd rate him higher and if Curry had a worse team you'd rate him lower. Unless, of course, you're working backwards from a conclusion (which I'm convinced most people who make this point are)

On the contrary it shows why the winning argument is so good. Didn't Curry's team have the worst record in the league without him a mere two seasons ago? But now two years later here he is again leading them to a championship. How would you have predicted that? I'll tell you how: his history of winning.

That Warriors roster was absolute garbage though. Here is their players who played >20 games in order of most games played to the least

Glenn Robinson III
Draymond
Cauley-Stein
Damion Lee
D'angelo Russel
Eric Paschall
Marquese Chriss

I've actually been arguing Steph has been one of the most impactful players and was deserving of the MVP conversation this season when everyone was **** on him for his slump but the simple fact is winning basketball games is so dependent on your team that using it as a reason for rating players doesn't really make sense.

This is why the winning argument is so bad. You're basically admitting if Jokic had a better team you'd rate him higher and if Curry had a worse team you'd rate him lower. Unless, of course, you're working backwards from a conclusion (which I'm convinced most people who make this point are)

Most GSW fans rate Jokic, a former mod and one of the most prolific posters on the GSW board considers him to be far and away the best player in the league.

Winning is important however, or are you suggesting the NBA is a competition to see who can generate the best individual stats ?. Curry has copped far more trenchant criticism than Jokic ever has when he/GSW have lost, and that was for losing in finals series. I also don’t recall many Jokic exposed threads, while at one time there were often multiple Curry detraction threads on the front page of this forum.

Bottom line is that we do know for certain Jokic is a great floor raiser, perhaps the best in the NBA now LeBron is in his late 30s, although Giannis might be able to do something equivalent with this roster while not being targetable on defense. The latter is the problem, we don’t know if Jokic can still be targeted deep in the play-offs even with better players around him, or whether his playing style in general translates to the very highest level. Maybe it would be an indictment of the current NBA and the focus on the perimeter in the current game if his game doesn’t translate, but we do know that Curry’s does, including that Curry teams can be elite defensively in the play-offs and that targeting him defensively as he constantly is hasn’t worked in 4 title runs.

Nope. Winning is the most important thing in any competitive sport but I think it's inadequate as a way to rate players in basketball, which is why I stick to rating players based on their performance. If Steph lost this finals while playing exactly the same my rating of him doesn't change at all.

Sure, both mean something, in particular Jokic’s regular season stats together with his team’s regular season record despite injuries etc mean he was far and away the deserved MVP.

I don’t think he could have done any more in his circumstances in the recent play-offs either. But until he wins a title, he hasn’t, and hasn’t proved his playing style works deep in the play-offs in particular.

[nfmos]

I'd rather take the guy who puts up wins in the playoffs. Curry doesn't care about stats.

How many wins has Curry gotten without 1/3rd of his roster including both his costars? Oh that's right he can't win without a stacked roster.

people always overlook this, curry needs a lot of expensive 2 way players around him to win games or else he'll flame out and break down

Wow you are still on here after your embarrassing takes on Curry all season?

Draymond and Klay got paid because they have played with Curry, and no one was praising Wiggins and his contract when he got traded.

Just another trash Curry take from you as usual, you think you would learn by now but i guess not.

[DroseReturnChi]

currys on the process of getting washed no one can defeat father time. i predicted lebron james 2 yrs earlier same with curry hes already depreciating 10% per yr. theres no way in any scenario curry is a superior basketball player than jokic in yr 2023. every single stat including 3pt efficiency will be surpassed by joker curry will feel a huge gap between him and all time great center.

this yr curry played with 4 max guys with 300mil salary while jokic played with g leaguers. and yet they were similar 50 win teams. that alone shows jokic in gs would easily 3peat sweeping boston. jokic is pretty much westbrook mvp season but 65% ts version. thats literally goat caliber curry cant even compare to.

[michaelm]

currys on the process of getting washed no one can defeat father time. i predicted lebron james 2 yrs earlier same with curry hes already depreciating 10% per yr. theres no way in any scenario curry is a superior basketball player than jokic in yr 2023. every single stat including 3pt efficiency will be surpassed by joker curry will feel a huge gap between him and all time great center.

this yr curry played with 4 max guys with 300mil salary while jokic played with g leaguers. and yet they were similar 50 win teams. that alone shows jokic in gs would easily 3peat sweeping boston. jokic is pretty much westbrook mvp season but 65% ts version. thats literally goat caliber curry cant even compare to.

I am glad to know that Curry will be undiminished next year, since you are invariably wrong about him

[gorz]

currys on the process of getting washed no one can defeat father time. i predicted lebron james 2 yrs earlier same with curry hes already depreciating 10% per yr. theres no way in any scenario curry is a superior basketball player than jokic in yr 2023. every single stat including 3pt efficiency will be surpassed by joker curry will feel a huge gap between him and all time great center.

this yr curry played with 4 max guys with 300mil salary while jokic played with g leaguers. and yet they were similar 50 win teams. that alone shows jokic in gs would easily 3peat sweeping boston. jokic is pretty much westbrook mvp season but 65% ts version. thats literally goat caliber curry cant even compare to.

Embiid healthy Kawhi Luka Curry Giannis could all carry Jokic supporting cast to playoffs in a weak western conference this year. Jokic has no excuses he had his full roster and could still never get to the finals. Curry on a decline is still better than Jokic.

[DrCoach]

Jokic is back to back MVP so….

[michaelm]

Nokic is back to back MVP so….

So Curry and not LeBron was the best player in the NBA after the 2016 finals ?.

[DrCoach]

Nokic is back to back MVP so….

So Curry and not LeBron was the best player in the NBA after the 2016 finals ?.

Stay on topic

[michaelm]

Nokic is back to back MVP so….

So Curry and not LeBron was the best player in the NBA after the 2016 finals ?.

Stay on topic

No answer then.

[Franco]

Michael Jordan when he was winning championships, absolutely.

Shocking that 2004 Chauncey Billups would be better than the back-to-back MVP

The rare exception has already been talked about if you read the thread.

Oh I saw it, doesn't make the big hole in your reasoning any less daunting