Exp0sed wrote:UglyBugBall wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
What is this, are you seriously suggesting Murray isn't a top 30 player now? Come on man, be serious. He's top 20 at worst, with Jokic having multiple other top 40ish players. I'm not going to say the nuggets are the most stacked team in the NBA, but they for sure have one of the top 3 rosters in the NBA and Murray is the best closer in the game. Jokic is a great 40 minute player, but we've seen what he is without Murray for an entire season and now in these playoffs. He's good, but he's not ATG unless you're just Boxscore watching. Sometimes we say players are more than the sum of their parts, like a butler. But Jokic is less than the sum of his parts. The stats are deceiving.
OP, I can't believe ur actually doubling down on of the worst takes in RealGM history haha
fwiw, rs Murray is NOT a top 30 player, period but it'd be hard to argue he isn't a top 30 player in the playoffs, because he is. he's probably right around there tbh. the "closer" argument is absouletly ridicilous because a,) Jokic is a hell of a closer and he proved it over and over in both the rs and the playoffs and B.) Murray plays off Jokic and his immense gravity - put him on the Pistons and let him "close" see where that gets ya
Jokic is the defintion of being "more than the sum of his parts" (or stats), so much of what he does isn't captured in the boxscore, much more so than other superstars, even moreso than his gaudy all-around stats suggest, not to mention his numbers aren't capturing his leadership (on and off the court), his control of the game, directing traffic on both offense and defense. I mean some of it is captured by impact stats obviously but def not in raw stats
the "we've seen what he's like without Murray" is a ridicilous argument and disingenious at that - Jokic not only played that whole season without his #2, he also played with his #3 (MPJ). both happen to be max players, so there was a whole season of two max players sitting on the bench and Jokic carried Campazzo, Austin Rivers and Will Barton almost to 50 wins
the guys who were in the rotation that year (aside from AG) were basically out of the league the next season.
that's not the same as "playing without Murray" now, is it? lmfao
p.s, losing the first two games of this series with Murray going something like 3-18 from the field, isn't the same as "playing without Murray" either, it's playing with a huge net negative that is Murray (in those games), that's hardly the same thing
you doubling down on this stupidity is pure entertainment