Can we safely say Jokic is the best offensive player ever?

[nikster]

It's not like Jokic has been massacred in the playoffs and not played well. Even last year he lost in 7 but put 29.4 PPG 11.4 RPG 7.9 APG on 59.6ts%. If Murray and Porter are gonna score 26-79 from 3 I'll say the Nuggets lose against any decent opponent, but it has not a lot to do with Jokic's performance.

It's not even worth it man. Jokic had a 34-17-7 game in game 7 where his team scored 90 points (oh the inflation from whatever random year these guys pick). And had those 19 boards against a team starting two centers who'd have both been starters in the 90's (the golden era of big men). But jokic doesn't face real competition at center and he can't have big games when it matters.

The absurdity never stops.

It is worth it and you're free to disagree or not comment. He certainly had good numbers, on par with his regular numbers. He took over 1 game in that series though, it wasn't enough. The efficiency wasn't helpful when he was passive during the 20 point 3rd quarter comeback by Minnesota. He scored alot of those 37 in the 4th quarter, after his team squandered a 20 point lead in the 3rd, in a game 7, at home. And Minnesota wasn't anything special, as evidenced by the next round. Harp on numbers all you want, but that takeover effect matters, and he hasnt delivered in that area. Go by numbers all you want, I know that's how you analyze the game. But we're talking about all time great offensive player here. All the guys in the discussion have great numbers. The separation in these discussion boils down to dominant playoff games and series where they take their team over the top vs. good competition, or at least steal some games with monster performances when their team is outmatched. Jokic lacks in that all important area compared to the greats this game has seen, and no ts% can change that.

So you're just picking and choosing whatever quarters are most unflattering to look at? Why would you dismiss the 4th quarter scoring, its not like the game was out of reach for most of those points? He scored 21 points in the 2nd half, and took 16 shots and 6 free throws.

The takeover narrative is a joke by any meausre or eye test. Game 4 and 5 he was dominant and took over by whatever definiton you want to use.

Compare to a player you think is a better closer and I can point to several series where they did much worse (except maybe MJ)

[dhsilv2]

It is worth it and you're free to disagree or not comment. He certainly had good numbers, on par with his regular numbers. He took over 1 game in that series though, it wasn't enough. The efficiency wasn't helpful when he was passive during the 20 point 3rd quarter comeback by Minnesota. He scored alot of those 37 in the 4th quarter, after his team squandered a 20 point lead in the 3rd, in a game 7, at home. And Minnesota wasn't anything special, as evidenced by the next round. Harp on numbers all you want, but that takeover effect matters, and he hasnt delivered in that area. Go by numbers all you want, I know that's how you analyze the game. But we're talking about all time great offensive player here. All the guys in the discussion have great numbers. The separation in these discussion boils down to dominant playoff games and series where they take their team over the top vs. good competition, or at least steal some games with monster performances when their team is outmatched. Jokic lacks in that all important area compared to the greats this game has seen, and no ts% can change that.

Jokic was exceptional in that series. Numbers or not. He was incredible. Just like he was incredible when his team lost in the first round to the warriors a few years before that. You can repeat your wild takes over and over but reality isn't going to change.

Of course he was exceptional. Hes a freaking league MVP. But all guys in this discussion are exceptional. I don't think he was better in the Golden State series, than say Lebron in 09 vs Orlando, or Lebron in the 15 finals falling short vs a better version of those warriors. I can't picture prime LeBron or MJ losing to a team like Minnesota with home court, either. They aren't wild takes, and I repeated them last year all season, was blasted all year, then Minnesota happened (reality!) Maybe there's something to it, maybe he'll get over that hump someday. But we're talking best all time here, and it takes more than efficient stats to enter that discussion.

Yes we heard them all year. Then Jokic proved you wrong and you ran with team results over what the player did.

It's all fine and good to pull from lebron's 20 year career. But was Lebron better in 2010? Lebron had a a poor 3rd quarter there too, 5 points with 3 turnovers as his team only scored 18 and the celtics pulled away.

And of course the answer is YES lebron was awesome, he just didn't have the team to win and one guy just can't do it all himself. But the argument and all time great had a better series in a loss than another when you have 20 years of series to pull from is pretty silly.

[JM00n69]

Ewing and DRob definitely strong enough in their prime years. Dwight well past his prime in 2020 was a major problem for Jok but I'm not sure how he then would do against this version of Jok. Draymond also did a very good job against him and GS went for single coverage and didn't double. Jok struggled to back down from high post and to get position off ball. Dray much shorter but was strong enough and most importantly knew to not let him get position before the pass came.

2020 was before Jokic hit his MVP form. He averaged 19/7 in the regular season.

In 2022 against the Warriors he "only" averaged 31 points and 6 assists on 64TS%. He didn't get as many assists but that has a lot to do with starting beside Monte Morris, Jeff Green and Will Barton.

Just to add to this:

* Dwight Howard was 265 lbs and extremely strong. And athletic even when older (2020). There's no shame in having a 3x DPOY give you issues before you've reached your top level.

* I think in the Dubs series (2022) the Warriors' goal was to let Jokic get his but hold down his passing and limit the Denver others. And it worked. But as you pointed out he averaged 31/13/5 on .643 TS with a series-high 25.9 Game Score average. He was dominant.

2022 was a successful Nuggets year, as you know, because they played the entire season without injured Murray and nearly the whole year without injured Porter. Losing to the eventual champs in the first round was inevitable but Jokic still went to work.

That's the point I was trying to make. If you could take prime Ewing or DRob and put them on a team today they'd give Jokic more trouble than anyone else who's playing now. I brought up Dwight in 2020 because we saw that happen. He was still super athletic and strong 100% and that's why it bothered Jok. Ewing and DRob in their prime would've been a much better version of that Dwight.

And I brough up Dray because he did a very good job covering Jok on his own most of the time that allowed GSW to not double and have to rotate help. Dray being much shorter that is very impressive but he did well because he's strong and knew how to could keep Jokic from getting deep position. A lot of his defensive work was keeping him from getting inside off ball.

Jokic is very very good at getting to where he needs to on the floor and once he does that's it. He can score on anyone then or he demands a double and he'll find the open shooter or cutter. And he's always in the perfect spot to rebound. Barely jumps but always always seems to get it. He makes it look easy but that's because there's nobody really that can physically stop him and body him from getting to where he know he needs to be.

[Joao Saraiva]

The answer to the question is simply no. And using advanced stats to prove that he is the GOAT offensive player is extremely flawed considering most advanced stats are based relative to per 36 basis, most advanced stats weight certain stats over other, and the league I by far the easiest to play in since Naismith had to use a stick to get the medicine ball out of the peach basket.

Largely disagree. And even more when evaluating Jokic.

Centers standing out would be much easier back in a days when all offense started by putting the ball in the post. That doesn't happen anymore. A center being the focal point is absolutely non sense nowadays... it only works because it's Jokic, and he's one of a kind.

Spurs ran their offense trough Duncan. That would never happen nowadays, since iniating trough Manu and Parker provided a lot more PPP for the team. Specially Manu.

Jokic is the absolute outlier in a league dominated more and more by perimeter players. Giannis and Embiid might have some of it, but they don't produce on offense like Jokic does. And it's not particularly close.

Also players have to cover a ton of ground, run a lot. Injuries are way up. We had a thread about miles covered during a game and this is the absolute peak in NBA history (it was a thread about why there are so many injuries).

Considering Jokic's weight and style of play... he has to be absolutely expectional not only to be relevant in this era but to dominate the way he does. It's mind blowing actually.

If someone told in this forum Jokic would be putting on a top 10 or top 5 case on the GOAT list by 2020 it would seem laughable. Now it's just reality. Denver seems dangerous with bonehead Westbrook being relevant and Jamal looking as washed as he ever did. That's how good Jokic is.

All the evidence is there to show he's an absolute outlier.

And no, I'm not even a big fan cause I prefer watching players who entertain me more. But there is no denying, Jokic is absolutely amazing.

[Doctor MJ]

It's just silly at this point. He's currently putting up the greatest offensive season ever. Good 5 year stretch (including this year) is the greatest offensive peak ever. I'm not sure we've ever seen player who can raise a team's floor or carry a team like he can. LeBron is the other debatable one in that category. If Jokic had teams as good as the other top 10~ all time players, he has more rings.

So, my broken-record of an answer is this:

The reason why we need to wait a while before we anoint someone the best ever in some basketball niche is because the league adapts to the player once he's had success, and does so in particular in the playoffs.

Jokic has been doing this long enough that you can certainly argue we've seen what the NBA can throw at him and he's proven his resilience/inevitability...but to be honest I'd really like to see

a) what his next playoffs are like after Denver's disappointing loss to Minnesota, and
b) more examples of him thriving in the playoffs against big defense

That said:

a) there's no doubt that Jokic is on my short list for best offensive player of all time
b) there's a part of me that feels like we should be expecting that the best offensive player from this era is the best all-time

P.S. In terms of my short-list for best offensive peaks, I'd say:

Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Steve Nash
LeBron James
Steph Curry
Nikola Jokic

With shout outs to guys like Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Larry Bird who are up there, but I just think Magic tops them, and from there my only real question is whether Magic himself has been topped.

[JM00n69]

2020 was before Jokic hit his MVP form. He averaged 19/7 in the regular season.

In 2022 against the Warriors he "only" averaged 31 points and 6 assists on 64TS%. He didn't get as many assists but that has a lot to do with starting beside Monte Morris, Jeff Green and Will Barton.

Just to add to this:

* Dwight Howard was 265 lbs and extremely strong. And athletic even when older (2020). There's no shame in having a 3x DPOY give you issues before you've reached your top level.

* I think in the Dubs series (2022) the Warriors' goal was to let Jokic get his but hold down his passing and limit the Denver others. And it worked. But as you pointed out he averaged 31/13/5 on .643 TS with a series-high 25.9 Game Score average. He was dominant.

2022 was a successful Nuggets year, as you know, because they played the entire season without injured Murray and nearly the whole year without injured Porter. Losing to the eventual champs in the first round was inevitable but Jokic still went to work.

That's the point I was trying to make. If you could take prime Ewing or DRob and put them on a team today they'd give Jokic more trouble than anyone else who's playing now. I brought up Dwight in 2020 because we saw that happen. He was still super athletic and strong 100% and that's why it bothered Jok. Ewing and DRob in their prime would've been a much better version of that Dwight.

And I brough up Dray because he did a very good job covering Jok on his own most of the time that allowed GSW to not double and have to rotate help. Dray being much shorter that is very impressive but he did well because he's strong and knew how to keep Jokic from getting deep position. A lot of his defensive work was keeping him from getting inside off ball.

Jokic is very very good at getting to where he needs to on the floor and once he does that's it. He can score on anyone then or he demands a double and he'll find the open shooter or cutter. And he's always in the perfect spot to rebound. Barely jumps but always always seems to get it. He makes it look easy but that's because there's nobody really that can physically stop him and body him from getting to where he know he needs to be.

[Bergmaniac]

Better offensive players based on what?

Literally everything. His basic and advanced stats are quite clearly, much better than Bird's. His greatest seasons are quite clearly better than Bird's. The eye test shows he can do nearly everything Bird did, but he does most of them better.

I don't see how it is a debate. Just look at Jokic's stats and watch some tape if you so desire. He's clearly a better offensive player than Larry. See the post above me. Again, not close.

So you look at stats in a vaccuum with no context. You don't care about things like era, rules, ease/difficulty of scoring in the paint. Larry Bird was going up against the likes of Michael Cooper and Dennis Rodman defending him, not to mention stars like Wilkins who made him work on the defensive end as well. Jokic is going up against the likes of ...nobody significant who slows him down nor gives it back to him on the defensive end. Don't give me Gobert, despite his awards he is not the defender of bigs like Olajuwon, Ewing, Mourning, Mutombo, Eaton, etc.

This is peak nostalgia talk. I implore you to watch a few full playoff games of Bird and than tell me with a straight face that he faced tougher defences than Jokic. Yes, Rodman and Cooper were great individual defenders but team defence is so much complex and plain better today than in the 1980s, especially when it comes to defending elite shooters liek Bird.

And claiming that Jokic has faced "nobody significant" in the playoffs is just false. He had played against AD (several times), Draymond, Bam, Gobert - the best defensive bigs in the game.

[shi-woo]

At this point, if you are still having these types of epiphanies and conversations about Jokic, than you simply haven't been paying attention. I get it though, hes a big goofy while Euro who is funny and humble, didn't force his way to your favorite team or get chosen one tattoo on his back, so he'll never get the love from the casuals or hardcore fans alike.

The Joel takes over the last few years have been embarrassing. The AD takes have been even worse. I find it absolutely hilarious that there are people in this thread saying things like "other than Embiid there is no other center his size and skilled" as a way to detract from his greatness Like, bro, no duh, their is that much of a difference between him and the next guy "lol:

Jokic is a Top 5 talent to ever lace them up, he's undeniably the GOAT offensive player, and if he wins another ring he's going to be cleanly sitting next to Bird, ahead of Hakeem, on the all time lists. I know, it hurts your guys feelings to admit it, but you guys are years late to the party.

I just wish we could admit the racism and xenophobia around this guy is real, so we could appretiate this 5 year carry job in the moment and not wait till he retires. LeBrons first CLE stint still gets more love and praise than Jokers run, and Jokic actually delivered the hardware and stuck around

[hardenASG13]

Jokic was exceptional in that series. Numbers or not. He was incredible. Just like he was incredible when his team lost in the first round to the warriors a few years before that. You can repeat your wild takes over and over but reality isn't going to change.

Of course he was exceptional. Hes a freaking league MVP. But all guys in this discussion are exceptional. I don't think he was better in the Golden State series, than say Lebron in 09 vs Orlando, or Lebron in the 15 finals falling short vs a better version of those warriors. I can't picture prime LeBron or MJ losing to a team like Minnesota with home court, either. They aren't wild takes, and I repeated them last year all season, was blasted all year, then Minnesota happened (reality!) Maybe there's something to it, maybe he'll get over that hump someday. But we're talking best all time here, and it takes more than efficient stats to enter that discussion.

Yes we heard them all year. Then Jokic proved you wrong and you ran with team results over what the player did.

It's all fine and good to pull from lebron's 20 year career. But was Lebron better in 2010? Lebron had a a poor 3rd quarter there too, 5 points with 3 turnovers as his team only scored 18 and the celtics pulled away.

And of course the answer is YES lebron was awesome, he just didn't have the team to win and one guy just can't do it all himself. But the argument and all time great had a better series in a loss than another when you have 20 years of series to pull from is pretty silly.

Yeah, boy do i feel silly for questioning the 23 title and suggesting Denver would lose vs quality competition last year. Jokic really proved me wrong haha. He was good, maybe great. Not best player ive ever seen great though. Far from it, I've seen Lebron, for example.

Sorry you think it's silly to pull from 20 years of Lebrons career. But he's been really good, for a long time, so? Not sure what you want me to do, as Lebron and his extensive resume of success and deep playoff runs is the type of guy we're comparing Jokic to in this thread (and his resume is much shorter and less impressive).

[dhsilv2]

Of course he was exceptional. Hes a freaking league MVP. But all guys in this discussion are exceptional. I don't think he was better in the Golden State series, than say Lebron in 09 vs Orlando, or Lebron in the 15 finals falling short vs a better version of those warriors. I can't picture prime LeBron or MJ losing to a team like Minnesota with home court, either. They aren't wild takes, and I repeated them last year all season, was blasted all year, then Minnesota happened (reality!) Maybe there's something to it, maybe he'll get over that hump someday. But we're talking best all time here, and it takes more than efficient stats to enter that discussion.

Yes we heard them all year. Then Jokic proved you wrong and you ran with team results over what the player did.

It's all fine and good to pull from lebron's 20 year career. But was Lebron better in 2010? Lebron had a a poor 3rd quarter there too, 5 points with 3 turnovers as his team only scored 18 and the celtics pulled away.

And of course the answer is YES lebron was awesome, he just didn't have the team to win and one guy just can't do it all himself. But the argument and all time great had a better series in a loss than another when you have 20 years of series to pull from is pretty silly.

Yeah, boy do i feel silly for questioning the 23 title and suggesting Denver would lose vs quality competition last year. Jokic really proved me wrong haha. He was good, maybe great. Not best player ive ever seen great though. Far from it, I've seen Lebron, for example.

Sorry you think it's silly to pull from 20 years of Lebrons career. But he's been really good, for a long time, so? Not sure what you want me to do, as Lebron and his extensive resume of success and deep playoff runs is the type of guy we're comparing Jokic to in this thread (and his resume is much shorter and less impressive).

Nobody thought the nuggets were an inevitable repeat team. The league is more balanced than it's ever been. The new cap rules make it exceptionally hard to build stacked teams like in the past. Boston seems to have found a short window where they might be untouchable but that's frankly as much luck as it was skill.

[hardenASG13]

It's not even worth it man. Jokic had a 34-17-7 game in game 7 where his team scored 90 points (oh the inflation from whatever random year these guys pick). And had those 19 boards against a team starting two centers who'd have both been starters in the 90's (the golden era of big men). But jokic doesn't face real competition at center and he can't have big games when it matters.

The absurdity never stops.

It is worth it and you're free to disagree or not comment. He certainly had good numbers, on par with his regular numbers. He took over 1 game in that series though, it wasn't enough. The efficiency wasn't helpful when he was passive during the 20 point 3rd quarter comeback by Minnesota. He scored alot of those 37 in the 4th quarter, after his team squandered a 20 point lead in the 3rd, in a game 7, at home. And Minnesota wasn't anything special, as evidenced by the next round. Harp on numbers all you want, but that takeover effect matters, and he hasnt delivered in that area. Go by numbers all you want, I know that's how you analyze the game. But we're talking about all time great offensive player here. All the guys in the discussion have great numbers. The separation in these discussion boils down to dominant playoff games and series where they take their team over the top vs. good competition, or at least steal some games with monster performances when their team is outmatched. Jokic lacks in that all important area compared to the greats this game has seen, and no ts% can change that.

So you're just picking and choosing whatever quarters are most unflattering to look at? Why would you dismiss the 4th quarter scoring, its not like the game was out of reach for most of those points? He scored 21 points in the 2nd half, and took 16 shots and 6 free throws.

The takeover narrative is a joke by any meausre or eye test. Game 4 and 5 he was dominant and took over by whatever definiton you want to use.

Compare to a player you think is a better closer and I can point to several series where they did much worse (except maybe MJ)

Fair enough. I'm not saying he was bad, he was actually really good. Plenty of guys have been really good in playoff loses though. They aren't being discussed as best offensive player ever though. That whole discussion is generally reserved for guys who have repeatedly taken their team over the top in series like that, and Jokic (takeover narrative) hasn't done that to this point. So i don't see how he can be considered, hands down, the best offensive player ever. He's got more chances to elevate in those scenarios though.

[islandkid12]

At this point, if you are still having these types of epiphanies and conversations about Jokic, than you simply haven't been paying attention. I get it though, hes a big goofy while Euro who is funny and humble, didn't force his way to your favorite team or get chosen one tattoo on his back, so he'll never get the love from the casuals or hardcore fans alike.

The Joel takes over the last few years have been embarrassing. The AD takes have been even worse. I find it absolutely hilarious that there are people in this thread saying things like "other than Embiid there is no other center his size and skilled" as a way to detract from his greatness Like, bro, no duh, their is that much of a difference between him and the next guy "lol:

Jokic is a Top 5 talent to ever lace them up, he's undeniably the GOAT offensive player, and if he wins another ring he's going to be cleanly sitting next to Bird, ahead of Hakeem, on the all time lists. I know, it hurts your guys feelings to admit it, but you guys are years late to the party.

I just wish we could admit the racism and xenophobia around this guy is real, so we could appretiate this 5 year carry job in the moment and not wait till he retires. LeBrons first CLE stint still gets more love and praise than Jokers run, and Jokic actually delivered the hardware and stuck around

You're in your head about the race stuff. The entire thread up until your post was all hoops and stats talk.

The last few pages are arguing for Larry Bird.. a white guy.

[dhsilv2]

It is worth it and you're free to disagree or not comment. He certainly had good numbers, on par with his regular numbers. He took over 1 game in that series though, it wasn't enough. The efficiency wasn't helpful when he was passive during the 20 point 3rd quarter comeback by Minnesota. He scored alot of those 37 in the 4th quarter, after his team squandered a 20 point lead in the 3rd, in a game 7, at home. And Minnesota wasn't anything special, as evidenced by the next round. Harp on numbers all you want, but that takeover effect matters, and he hasnt delivered in that area. Go by numbers all you want, I know that's how you analyze the game. But we're talking about all time great offensive player here. All the guys in the discussion have great numbers. The separation in these discussion boils down to dominant playoff games and series where they take their team over the top vs. good competition, or at least steal some games with monster performances when their team is outmatched. Jokic lacks in that all important area compared to the greats this game has seen, and no ts% can change that.

So you're just picking and choosing whatever quarters are most unflattering to look at? Why would you dismiss the 4th quarter scoring, its not like the game was out of reach for most of those points? He scored 21 points in the 2nd half, and took 16 shots and 6 free throws.

The takeover narrative is a joke by any meausre or eye test. Game 4 and 5 he was dominant and took over by whatever definiton you want to use.

Compare to a player you think is a better closer and I can point to several series where they did much worse (except maybe MJ)

Fair enough. I'm not saying he was bad, he was actually really good. Plenty of guys have been really good in playoff loses though. They aren't being discussed as best offensive player ever though. That whole discussion is generally reserved for guys who have repeatedly taken their team over the top in series like that, and Jokic (takeover narrative) hasn't done that to this point. So i don't see how he can be considered, hands down, the best offensive player ever. He's got more chances to elevate in those scenarios though.

This is where offensive discussion get so damn muddy.

If a player makes a perfect pass to setup a wide open 3 point specialist...say MPJ. Is that not elite offense, even if the shot doesn't go in?

[nikster]

Better offensive players based on what?

Literally everything. His basic and advanced stats are quite clearly, much better than Bird's. His greatest seasons are quite clearly better than Bird's. The eye test shows he can do nearly everything Bird did, but he does most of them better.

I don't see how it is a debate. Just look at Jokic's stats and watch some tape if you so desire. He's clearly a better offensive player than Larry. See the post above me. Again, not close.

So you look at stats in a vaccuum with no context. You don't care about things like era, rules, ease/difficulty of scoring in the paint. Larry Bird was going up against the likes of Michael Cooper and Dennis Rodman defending him, not to mention stars like Wilkins who made him work on the defensive end as well. Jokic is going up against the likes of ...nobody significant who slows him down nor gives it back to him on the defensive end. Don't give me Gobert, despite his awards he is not the defender of bigs like Olajuwon, Ewing, Mourning, Mutombo, Eaton, etc.

It's always funny when people look back at historical players and the defenders they went up against, there is often little overlap in their careers. Rodman played Larry in the playoffs only two times. First time Rodman was a rookie and in the 2nd series Bird had a bad series. Doesn't really support your argument that Bird had to overcome good defenders.

As for era context, Bird played in one of the highest scoring eras in league history. The league scoring average over Bird's prime is only 3-4 points lower than during Jokic prime, and those Celtics actually had a slightly higher pace than the Nuggets.

[MavsDirk41]

MJ, LeBron, and Jokic and more unstoppable. That's unquestionable. They are better offensive players.

Better offensive players based on what?

Based on eye test, statistics, and advanced metrics.

Bird is that special kind of player who has many amazing moments that it's difficult to have an unbiased view of him without watching entire games and then examining the stats. In that way, Bird is much like Kobe.

Kobe is often lauded as being one of the GOATs but when you compare him to players like MJ based on watching an entire game, looking at the box score, and advanced metrics, he comes up significantly short. Not by much, but enough that people in the know will rank MJ over Kobe consistently.

We will see below that Bird's statistical impact rankings put him the same tier with Kobe and not in the tier with MJ and others.

Bird's best season for WS/48 ranks 155 while the top 10 features the players like Kareem, MJ, LeBron, Wilt, Steph, and Jokic. Kobe's best season does not rank in the top 250.

For OBMP, Bird's best season ranks #42 while Jokic, Steph, LeBron, and MJ are in the top 10. Kobe's best year is #55.

For VORP, BIrd's best season ranks #40 while MJ, LeBron, and Jokic are in the top 10. Kobe is #63.

For PER, Bird's best year ranks #97 while Jokic, Wilt, MJ, LeBron, and Giannis are in the top 10. Kobe's best year is #91.

At this point, the arguments for Bird's dominance sound much the arguments for Kobe's dominance. They are simply not backed by evidence. Both are great players. Legends. But they are not at the same level as Kareem, MJ, LeBron, etc.

Ahhh advanced metrics….Boston improved by 30 games in Birds first year in Boston. 30 games. Larry Bird played in an era when the 3 point shot wasnt really part of a teams offense. He only had 4 seasons in which he averaged at least 3 - 3 point attempts per game. He shot 40% from 3 in those 4 seasons. 40%….His field goal percentage from the floor overall was 50%. He was an 89% free throw shooter. The man had no weaknesses offensively. That is why people compare his offensive game to Jokic. Jordan didnt have the 3 point shot of a Bird. James is a mediocre free throw shooter without the mid range game of a Jordan or Bird. Bird also wasnt the point guard for the team and played off ball more than James. Kobe was just inefficient….i can poke holes in all of their offensive games. I cant for Bird or Jokic.

Im not saying he is the greatest offensive player ever. But if you are talking about 7-8 players, he is in the discussion. That is why people who actually warched him play say the same thing.

[Rust_Cohle]

Jokic was exceptional in that series. Numbers or not. He was incredible. Just like he was incredible when his team lost in the first round to the warriors a few years before that. You can repeat your wild takes over and over but reality isn't going to change.

Of course he was exceptional. Hes a freaking league MVP. But all guys in this discussion are exceptional. I don't think he was better in the Golden State series, than say Lebron in 09 vs Orlando, or Lebron in the 15 finals falling short vs a better version of those warriors. I can't picture prime LeBron or MJ losing to a team like Minnesota with home court, either. They aren't wild takes, and I repeated them last year all season, was blasted all year, then Minnesota happened (reality!) Maybe there's something to it, maybe he'll get over that hump someday. But we're talking best all time here, and it takes more than efficient stats to enter that discussion.

Yes we heard them all year. Then Jokic proved you wrong and you ran with team results over what the player did.

It's all fine and good to pull from lebron's 20 year career. But was Lebron better in 2010? Lebron had a a poor 3rd quarter there too, 5 points with 3 turnovers as his team only scored 18 and the celtics pulled away.

And of course the answer is YES lebron was awesome, he just didn't have the team to win and one guy just can't do it all himself. But the argument and all time great had a better series in a loss than another when you have 20 years of series to pull from is pretty silly.

I don’t mean to sound like a broken record but I’d take Jokic in a 7 game series even over LeBron. I’d argue his supporting cast is very overrated but Jokic as a ceiling raiser is even better than LeBron.

[MavsDirk41]

MJ, LeBron, and Jokic and more unstoppable. That's unquestionable. They are better offensive players.

Better offensive players based on what?

Literally everything. His basic and advanced stats are quite clearly, much better than Bird's. His greatest seasons are quite clearly better than Bird's. The eye test shows he can do nearly everything Bird did, but he does most of them better.

I don't see how it is a debate. Just look at Jokic's stats and watch some tape if you so desire. He's clearly a better offensive player than Larry. See the post above me. Again, not close.

Jokic yes, but the other two no. Jokic and Bird have no weaknesses offensively. The other cant say the same thing. Watch the tape? Lol i watch plenty of Denver games palo. I know you are an expert on 80s nba though.

[dhsilv2]

Better offensive players based on what?

Literally everything. His basic and advanced stats are quite clearly, much better than Bird's. His greatest seasons are quite clearly better than Bird's. The eye test shows he can do nearly everything Bird did, but he does most of them better.

I don't see how it is a debate. Just look at Jokic's stats and watch some tape if you so desire. He's clearly a better offensive player than Larry. See the post above me. Again, not close.

Jokic yes, but the other two no. Jokic and Bird have no weaknesses offensively. The other cant say the same thing. Watch the tape? Lol i watch plenty of Denver games palo. I know you are an expert on 80s nba though.

Love bird and he's great. But you can't argue for things like dribbling and leave bird in the mix. I'd add Bird did have some disappointing playoffs over the years.

Birds an all time great but I'm not sure he really has a place in the GOAT offensive player discussions. Magic is generally seen as better and he sure as heck wasn't the better defender between the two. But he was the better offensive player. I'll throw MJ, Curry, and Jokic in with Magic if I'm picking my all time greats.

I still can't decide if I have lebron in this mix. I'd guess he is but likely my own personal bias.

But I'm not sure beyond these guys really anyone else has a case.

[Sedale Threatt]

Literally everything. His basic and advanced stats are quite clearly, much better than Bird's. His greatest seasons are quite clearly better than Bird's. The eye test shows he can do nearly everything Bird did, but he does most of them better.

I don't see how it is a debate. Just look at Jokic's stats and watch some tape if you so desire. He's clearly a better offensive player than Larry. See the post above me. Again, not close.

So you look at stats in a vaccuum with no context. You don't care about things like era, rules, ease/difficulty of scoring in the paint. Larry Bird was going up against the likes of Michael Cooper and Dennis Rodman defending him, not to mention stars like Wilkins who made him work on the defensive end as well. Jokic is going up against the likes of ...nobody significant who slows him down nor gives it back to him on the defensive end. Don't give me Gobert, despite his awards he is not the defender of bigs like Olajuwon, Ewing, Mourning, Mutombo, Eaton, etc.

This is peak nostalgia talk. I implore you to watch a few full playoff games of Bird and than tell me with a straight face that he faced tougher defences than Jokic. Yes, Rodman and Cooper were great individual defenders but team defence is so much complex and plain better today than in the 1980s, especially when it comes to defending elite shooters liek Bird.

And claiming that Jokic has faced "nobody significant" in the playoffs is just false. He had played against AD (several times), Draymond, Bam, Gobert - the best defensive bigs in the game.

I started watching the NBA in the late 80s so I will always have a soft spot for it. I've got all of L.A.'s championship series on DVD and spent a good chunk of the pandemic rewatching old games on YouTube, which is an absolute gold mine.

But the level of defensive effort/organization back then was comparatively laughable. The Lakers used to run this soft halfcourt trap which was just about the height of defensive sophistication at the time. Everybody freaked out over the Jordan Rules, which was basically force him to his left and foul him hard once he got into the air. State-of-the-art stuff.

Compared to now where if you have even one non-shooter on the floor it can break your offense, and teams will actively seek out mismatches and devour you if you can't provide enough help. People just look at the scores and think modern defenses suck without taking into account the pace and focus on 3-point shooting have completely changed everything.

Just the fact you have to actively cover the floor out to 24 feet or you stand the chance of getting lit up is a complete sea change from the 80s. Those Finals were/are extremely entertaining, but it says something that they basically ran their entire offenses within 15 feet of the hoop and the court never seemed crowded.

What does that tell you?

EDIT: NBA defenses were so good in the 80s that the Lakers had a season where they shot 55% from the floor. As a team. Granted, they had an absolutely amazing collection of talent.

But again, what does that tell you?

[bledredwine]

So you look at stats in a vaccuum with no context. You don't care about things like era, rules, ease/difficulty of scoring in the paint. Larry Bird was going up against the likes of Michael Cooper and Dennis Rodman defending him, not to mention stars like Wilkins who made him work on the defensive end as well. Jokic is going up against the likes of ...nobody significant who slows him down nor gives it back to him on the defensive end. Don't give me Gobert, despite his awards he is not the defender of bigs like Olajuwon, Ewing, Mourning, Mutombo, Eaton, etc.

This is peak nostalgia talk. I implore you to watch a few full playoff games of Bird and than tell me with a straight face that he faced tougher defences than Jokic. Yes, Rodman and Cooper were great individual defenders but team defence is so much complex and plain better today than in the 1980s, especially when it comes to defending elite shooters liek Bird.

And claiming that Jokic has faced "nobody significant" in the playoffs is just false. He had played against AD (several times), Draymond, Bam, Gobert - the best defensive bigs in the game.

I started watching the NBA in the late 80s so I will always have a soft spot for it. I've got all of L.A.'s championship series on DVD and spent a good chunk of the pandemic rewatching old games on YouTube, which is an absolute gold mine.

But the level of defensive effort/organization back then was comparatively laughable. The Lakers used to run this soft halfcourt trap which was just about the height of defensive sophistication at the time. Everybody freaked out over the Jordan Rules, which was basically force him to his left and foul him hard once he got into the air. State-of-the-art stuff.

Compared to now where if you have even one non-shooter on the floor it can break your offense, and teams will actively seek out mismatches and devour you if you can't provide enough help. People just look at the scores and think modern defenses suck without taking into account the pace and focus on 3-point shooting have completely changed everything.

Just the fact you have to actively cover the floor out to 24 feet or you stand the chance of getting lit up is a complete sea change from the 80s. Those Finals were/are extremely entertaining, but it says something that they basically ran their entire offenses within 15 feet of the hoop and the court never seemed crowded.

What does that tell you?

That without anyone in the lane, and no defense but prioritizing shooters instead, no lockdown defenders, it's quite easy to penetrate and score for perimeter players.