Top 25 peaks of the 2001-25: #3-#4 Spots

70sFan · Post #1 » by **70sFan** » Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:01 pm

Welcome to the new iteration of the greatest peaks project with the new format! This time, we will rank the greatest 25 peaks of the last 25 seasons:

2000/01 - 2024/25.

Just to remind the rules:

1. Official ballots must include 4 different player seasons (name + year) with the (at least short) explanation for each of them. We will conclude the 2 best peaks in this thread based on the results of the voting, using Kemeny method.

2. The thread will be open for 7 days (up to August 31st), unless the longer period will be necessary. I am open to make it longer, but we have to make it through all the threads and all the eras.

3. The participation criteria are the following:

1. Account creation before August 2024.
2. At least 100 posts on RealGM forums.

Of course I recommend everyone who doesn't meet the criteria to contribute on these threads without voting, that would help us adding you in the later stages of the project.

Remember to pick the year for your choices and please, provide all the seasons worth the place IN ORDER - that would help us to conclude the year for a winning player.

The criteria are up to you, but you need to briefly explain it for the rest of the voting panel. It is good to take into account the data from surrounding seasons to evaluate players, but remember to pick a specific season.

Here is the voting panel:

Spoiler:

If anyone wants to join in, please let me know.

The list:

#1. 2008/09 LeBron James
#2. 2002/03 Tim Duncan

70sFan · Post #2 » by **70sFan** » Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:04 pm

So my top 2 would likely be Jokic and Shaq, though I am open to the cases for the other ones. I am thinking about Curry and Garnett in particular, but can see a case for Giannis, Shai, even Kawhi. I think it's getting more interesting now

Whopper_Sr · Post #3 » by **Whopper_Sr** » Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:24 pm

Not a voter but great start to the project so far. Think the right guys went #1 and #2 here.

Also happy to see some of the newer guys making a push for a top 5 spot. The Shaq/Duncan/KG/LeBron group looked unbreakable for the longest time post MJ.

One_and_Done · Post #4 » by **One_and_Done** » Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:36 pm

I'm voting Shaq #1 for sure. Not 100% on my next 3, but leaning Kawhi 2017 for the #2 #spot right now. Other candidates are Curry, Giannis, Jokic, and KG.

Mr Ringer · Post #5 » by **Mr Ringer** » Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:49 pm

Nice project
Not a voter but must say it's a no brainer for me for Shaq next (probably 00' or 01', 02' also arguable)
Besides him it's between Giannis, Steph or Jokic for me, very hard

I'll let Giannis 21' have the edge, one of the best finals performances I've ever seen and I have to admit he is my favorite out of the three

Sent from my IV2201 using RealGM mobile app

eminence · Post #6 » by **eminence** » Sun Aug 31, 2025 11:13 pm

My top two will be Curry/Shaq barring a surprise convincing argument.

KG/Jokic leading for the 3/4 spots. SGA my immediate thought for others to add, but getting into a much wider tier quite quickly. Probably another ~10 guys I don't mind being mentioned in this thread.

Post #7 » by **tsherkin** » Sun Aug 31, 2025 11:44 pm

Okay, so with Lebron and Duncan in already, that focuses me down to Jokic and Shaq.

Literate this time, I will say 23 Jokic, followed by 01 Shaq.

I think the argument for Jokic is pretty clear. Statistically, he wipes, and while he missed the triple double average he posted in 2025, he was scoring on an insane level and then went bats**t crazy in the playoffs en route to the title.

And with Shaq, he was a dominant monster, a roughly 29/13/4 guy in the RS who led the league in FG% and was a monster foul-draw, who then went for 30/15/3 in the playoffs while absolutely annihilating the O-boards in Moses-like fashion. He was unstoppable.

trelos6 · Post #8 » by **trelos6** » Mon Sep 1, 2025 1:59 am

Reading all the comments off the first thread, I don't think I've been swayed off my original top 6.

3. Stephen Curry 2016-17 . ('17 > '16 > '15). Not his best regular season, but best overall campaign. 27.4 pp75, +7.1 rTS%. Team rOrtg of +6.8. Top 6 playmaker. Playoffs; 28.5, +10.6%. But all of that means nothing. Teams were leaving Kevin Durant wide open because they were worried about Stephen Curry (6.3% wide open shots in 2016 vs 12.2% wide open shots in 2017 playoffs for KD). That is the definition of gravity.

4. Nikola Jokic 2022-23 . ('23 > '24 > '25). Best playmaker and passer in the league. 26.7 pp75 +12 rTS% in RS, 29pp75 +5 rTS% in the playoffs. +2.8 rOrtg. -0.6 dRtg. Up to +6 rOrtg in PS along with a -2.7 dRtg. My only concerns for Jokic is the level of competition the Nuggets faced in the playoffs. Miami went on a Heater, and came crashing back to earth in the finals.

5. Shaquille O'Neal 2000-01 . ('01 > '02 > '04). Solid regular season despite the injuries the Lakers had. 28.5 pp75 on +5.6 rTS%. Insane FTA rate, though only converted them at 51%. Still, team offense was a +5.4 rOrtg, the defense was +1.8. But in the playoffs, the Lakers were historic. 15-1, with a +7.1 rOrtg, -6.6 rDRtg. Kings, Spurs and Blazers were 3 very good teams, and they were all obliterated by the 2001 Lakers. Outlier shooting or not, Shaq was the dominant force at the rim, creating open looks for his team.

6. Kevin Garnett 2003-04 ('04 > '03 > '08). Carried the Wolves to back to back seasons of top 5 offenses in the league. 24.9 pp75 on +3.1 rTS%, team rOrtg of +3. Top 6 regular season defense. Upped his Reb% and best Block% of his career. Amazing advanced stats. I often compare him to Duncan since they are so often compared.

Code: Select all

xRAPM:   '03 TD +8,    '04 KG +8.9
PIPM:       TD +7.11,    KG +8.06
AuPM:      TD +6.9,       KG +8.5
PIRAPM:    TD +9.11,    KG +10.01
PS PIPM:    TD +6.62,    KG +2.42

You can see, KG compares favourably with '03 Duncan in all except post season PIPM. And KG wasn't bad in the PS. He held his own against the 2004 Lakers. If Sprewell doesn't go 4-18 in G4, or 8-22 in G6 maybe they take them to 7.

DraymondGold · Post #9 » by **DraymondGold** » Mon Sep 1, 2025 3:07 am

Voting Post
There's a clear top 6 to me, so with two down I go to the next four, building on my post from last time. Open to discussion on some of the order (particularly would be interested in some film analysis on comparing the bigs). Here's my first-pass based on the last thread, though I might always edit.

1. 2017 Steph Curry (>2016 > 2015).
GOAT tier impact metrics. Significantly better pure/raw impact numbers (#1 prime WOWY all time, much better plus minus than the competition, roughly best on/off). A smaller but still relatively consistent advantage in the more intelligent metrics, including better RS EPM in each of 2015–2017 than Jokic/Duncan/Shaq/Garnett, and the 4th best playoff EPM on record in 2017. For example:

Spoiler:

All these metrics are flawed, have uncertainty ranges, and no peak universally stands out above the rest. If you’re a fan of another player, there’s likely enough uncertainty range to still argue for someone you prefer! But if you’re noting a trend in these stats, you’re not alone. Curry pretty consistently is at or near the top, generally looking more impactful than the competition.
So if you’re interested in the player with the most impact, or the player with the most championship odds (since Curry’s higher impact comes on the most dominant team of the century), the available data tends to suggest that’s Curry.

Yes, the situation was favorable, and yes, he had plenty of help. But if you want to win championships, you need good teammates, and you need to synergize and dominate when you have those teammates. The Warriors were far more reliant on Curry than you’d think, and with Curry played like the GOAT team:

17-19 Warriors net rating with all 4 all-stars: +15.9
17-19 Warriors net rating with 3 all stars, no Durant: +11.1
17-19 Warriors net rating with Dray+Curry, no Durant no Klay: +11.6
17-19 Warriors net rating with only Curry, no Durant no Klay no Dray: +9.4
17-19 Warriors net rating with Durant + Klay + Dray, no Curry: +3.7
17-19 Warriors net rating with none of the 4 all-stars: -10.3
Per pbpstats.com, full season data.

The data we have make it pretty clear — without Curry, this team was a far cry from the dominance that earns strong championship odds, and Curry is clearly the only player to have the effect on the Warriors.

-How is a one way star able to outperform two way rivals? In the modern era, there’s a clear trend of individual offensive impact > individual defensive impact: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=119539240#p119539240
-Does Curry show GOAT level offensive impact on film? To my eye, yes: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=119540656#p119540656
-Is Curry still able to dominate when the pressure’s high and there’s less of a talent advantage? Film analysis by others tend to support this: e.g. see videos in https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=119544612#p119544612 and https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=119548734#p119548734 .
-Others have argued that Curry didn’t join his best regular season (2016) and playoffs (2017). This is probably true. Gven the small sample size and context that can drive a playoffs up or down (e.g. injury), it’s fairly common for a player’s best regular season and postseason to be in different years. Shaq may have had a better 2000 regular season and 2001 postseason. LeBron may may have had a better 2013 regular season and 2012 postseason. When a player’s best regular season and playoffs come reasonably close together, as they do for Curry, that’s indicative of them being at their overall peak, even if they didn’t put it together as effectively. In this case, taking a multi-year lens which averages across both the highs and the relative lows is a fair way to compare players, and Curry still seems like the most impactful player on the most impactful team.

Ultimately, I value winning championships, which means I value ceiling raising. The Curry-led Warriors dominated like no other in the past few decades, and they did that of the back of Curry.

2. 2023 Nikola Jokic (>2024).

His impact is well documented. One of the best offensive players ever, again in an era where individual offense is at its most valuable. He’s also arguably the most versatile offensive GOAT candidate. Beautiful passing game and IQ, combined with a diverse and versatile scoring package. He’s a positive shooter as a big, with a great mid range, and perhaps the best touch near the rim of any big ever. I love that his game fits so well with teammates; you can run him as a passing hub in the middle of the floor with pretty poor surrounding talent, and he can floor raise them to good heights. He’s clearly a more impactful regular season player than Duncan or Shaq. But you could also pair him with a perimeter star, and the resulting two man game can be deadly — pick and rolls, pick and pops, great screening, great shooting, hand offs, offensive rebounds and tips, on ball passes from the nail, off ball tip passes to cutters, whatever you need.

At the same time, the data we have suggests he’s not quite as valuable as Curry. Basketball’s not a video game, where you add points in different areas until you max out. It’s more of a complex chemistry, where skills of a player interact with other skills of a player and with the other players on the court, to create some nonlinear effects. Curry’s GOAT shooting, all-time scoring package, all-time handle, and GOAT off-ball ability just breaks the game. It creates constant openings for the offense and scramble the defense. It’s versatile against a wide variety of defensive coverages as we saw perhaps most clearly in the 2022 finals and I think it breaks defense is more than Jokic’s versatility.

I think playoff resilience issues are touchy subjects, as they can often be subject to overinterpreting small sample sizes, or to biases inspired by memorable moments, or to overgeneralizing trends from specific matchups. Correctly diagnosing the signal from the noise can be hard. I don’t see either as massive playoff improvers (I don’t think they need to be, given they're both all-time regular season performers). But I also don’t see Jokić is more resilient than curry across a variety of years as we see a slight plus minus decline from Jokić. I think much of that is noise. But if there is some signal, I think it may be from either (a) his having defensive weaknesses that are more detrimental than Curry’s, and (b) not having a game breaking weapon in the way some of the other offensive GOATs do. Jokic’s defensive improvements, which I described in past posts, have been key to getting him to this level at the same time mismatch hunting seems to produce more effective offense for opponents against Jokić than Curry. Likewise, from a teambuilding perspective, having a player with defensive weaknesses at the center seems much more limiting than having a player with defensive weaknesses from the point guard. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Currys teams reached significantly higher highs defensively, and overall. Of course, much of that comes from the massive talent, disparity, but I also think Curry is more scalable. Jokić has also shown a slight weakness offensively in his lack of handle, and lack of willingness to volume score and volume shoot from distance in the face of defenses that are key in on stopping his playmaking. We do see some scoring decline in the playoffs in years surrounding 2023, although a drop in box score volume and efficiency can be made up in subtler ways elsewhere for a great talent like Jokic. To be clear, these are nitpicks, but they are the kind of nitpicks that make me hesitant to agree with the sentiment that Jokić is more resilient than Curry, which I’ve seen a few times. Thankfully, for Jokic, he’s still in the middle of his peak, and so we will hopefully have the pleasure of watching more runs to come from him.

3. 2004 Kevin Garnett
Defensively, I think Garnet has an argument for being the best defender of the century. His defensive RAPM arguably look the best, and they look even better when he got to a more favorable situation in Boston, albeit in a slightly reduced role garnet is a better communicator, is more versatile on the perimeter, and is quicker and help defense, at the cost of fouling slightly more and being a slightly worse individual room protector. The backline communication and versatility are especially intriguing. When you consider Garnett’s versatility on both sides of the floor and his ability to not clog the paint offensively, that suggests it would be even easier to pair Garnett with a rim protecting center than Duncan (who’s already great in that area), which helps reduce my concerns about that weakness for Garnett.

Offensively, Garnett is a great player. Great shooter for a big, great passer, and a very smart player. He suffered from some of the least talented supporting cast during his peak of any top 10/20 peak. He’d probably be best suited for a 1st option defender and 1b/2nd option offensively, in a similar mold to Duncan, Robinson, ~Hakeem, ~Russell. I have no concerns for how Garnet would scale as a secondary scorer. He’s a better passer than Duncan, he’s a more efficient score from each region of the floor than Duncan (he just shoots more volume from his less efficient spots on the floor, which reduces his individual efficiency, but has spacing benefits), and I like Garnet more as a “little things” guy (think rebounder, screener, pick and roll partner, offensive communicator, etc.). There was some more detailed discussion of Garnett in the previous thread.

At least, that’s how I see it today, although I’m still willing to be convinced otherwise. In particular, the lack of mid-peak playoff runs for Garnett give me higher uncertainty. Is there something real to Garnett’s playoff decline that we can’t describe to his poor situation? He played well in Boston, but unfortunately, we only saw a 2008 (and a single run is too small for me sample size wise) before injuries started to wear him down.

4. 2001 Shaquille O'Neal
I was tempted to pick Shaq over Garnett, and have had Shaq over many of these players in the past. I would have 2000 Shaq probably higher than 2004 Garnett. However, I’m not sure exactly how to handle the era split. Without 2000, it’s unclear exactly how to treat 2001 Shaq. I decided to consider “true” peak Shaq in the prior era, for better or worse. 2001 Shaq has some massive regular season costing and defensive decline. He’s still one of the most dominant playoff players ever as is evident in his all-time playoff on/off over multi year runs (usually ones that include prior years). He’s still an all-time player from WOWY data. But these limitations seem unique to 2001 onward, and seems significant enough that I decided to downgrade Shaq rank in here, expect him to be higher in the prior era. Open to other suggestions. Particularly, if film analysis can show that the 2001 Lakers were so dominant from three-point shooting that was open as a result of Shaq’s gravity, and that there’s compelling reason to down weight the regular season from a championship odds perspective, that would make me higher on Shaq.

It’s a tough choice, but that’s how I’m leaning today.

One_and_Done · Post #10 » by **One_and_Done** » Mon Sep 1, 2025 3:16 am

For me, this exercise is all about assessing a players impact. How we do that is a trickier exercise, but you should be able to see indicators that strongly validate the claimed impact of a player, which survives logical scrutiny.

In the case of Jokic, it’s not that I think we shouldn’t be discussing him soon, but for me it is just too early for him. We all know that various numbers say Jokic is amazing, and to a degree I agree he is, but in my mind there are indicators which strongly suggest his peak impact is a little overrated.

Looking at Jokic’s last 3 years, which people will use when citing his “peak” performance, we see his teams only won 53, 57, and 50 games, with middling SRS, and were bumped in the 2nd round twice (once by a team that was really nothing special). That should give us pause. Jokic’s advocates will say that it’s not his fault, and if you look at RAPMVORPCOPTER he was a god. In short, I don’t agree. I think Jokic has had plenty of help around him to achieve more. That may sound harsh, and if we were comparing him to the likes of Kobe or Karl Malone then it would indeed be a harsh assessment. But Jokic is being compared to the best of the best, guys like Duncan and Lebron who did indeed carry worse teams to better results. Of course, those 2 are in now, but I think plenty of remaining names show more capability to lift their teams than Jokic.

Yes, Shaq often had good teams around him, but then let’s look at the times that wasn’t so. The Lakers with Shaq and without Kobe from 00-04, and they play like a 60+ win team with Shaq and no Kobe (31-11), but are a sub-500 team with Kobe and without Shaq. Those Kobe-less support casts from 00-04 were far worse than anything Jokic played with. But then you look further. Shaq was always the best player on his team until 06, and you can see lots of samples that show his substantial lift. For instance, the 96 Magic were 40-14 with Shaq, and only 20-8 without him. The 97 Lakers were 38-13 with Shaq, but only 18-13 without him. The 98 Lakers were 46-14 with him, but only 15-7 without him. I could go on. Shaq in 2005 was the last legitimate year of full-time prime Shaq, and the Heat won 59 that year. The next year with Shaq’s drop off they fell to 52 wins, then 44, then 15, then 43. Obviously Wade was hurt in the 15 win season, but the clear drop off was largely due on the absence of a prime Shaq. The Magic dropped from 60 wins to 45 after he left. Even rookie Shaq saw his team improve 20 wins, and that was far from peak Shaq.

Shaq’s huge lift was there, and in the playoffs he was just as devastating. I look at Jokic’s team, and I find it hard to buy that his impact is as big as his numbers suggest when he has such good players around him. Jamal Murray has had his ups and downs, but when healthy he’s an all-star calibre guard. When Jokic did go all the way, Murray was healthy and looked unbelievably good. A.Gordon is a borderline all-star. Michael Porter is gone now, but he got a max for a reason. The dude is a good player, and we’ll probably be reminded of that now that he’s more of a focal point player for the Nets. There was usually a good 3&D guy to round out the starting 5 too, and sometimes a few good bench players. A player with one of the best peaks ever needs to be doing more with a team like that.

From a logical point of view, I have always been concerned about Jokic’s defensive issues, especially in the pick and roll, and it’s not a surprise that the one year he won a title he got a slate of opponents who couldn’t attack him there (no Boston, no OKC, no Dallas, not even a Memphis). Jokic got a run of West teams who the Nuggets matched up favourably with, and then in the finals the Heat ran out of gas (and had injuries) and were also a favourable match up. There was no pick and roll, 5 out spacing to kill Jokic. On the other hand, the Heat matched up exceedingly well with Boston, and edged them out. The day of the deciding game in the ECFs, the oddsmakers (quite rightly) had Boston as the title favourite over both Denver and Miami, because they knew if Boston got through they’d roll them. By Pelton’s statistical analysis the Nuggets were the 2nd weakest champs between 2000 and 2023, behind the Heat. Like Pelton, I think that’s a little unfair, and doesn’t account for a lot of factors, but like with the Heat I felt confident they weren’t repeating. In fact I posted vociferously at the time that the Nuggets were a good chance to lose in the 2nd round the next year, which they have done in both the following years.

I am more impressed by what Giannis did in 2021 than I am by Jokic’s best year. The carry-job was more significant. I think Curry’s 2022 title was also a more impressive carry job than any of Jokic’s runs. Curry had comparatively little around him that year. Kawhi is trickier, as his peak is so limited, but I don’t feel like I can punish him for getting a random injury in the 2017 WCFs, not when others are nominating people like 09 Lebron who only made it to the ECFs, or Jokic’s 25 and 24 runs, where he only made the 2nd round, or people who will nominate late 70s Kareem who did even worse. Those guys didn’t even make it to the conference finals to get injured, so how can I punish Kawhi for it? He was healthy enough.

In the case of Kawhi, I think he’s got fewer weaknesses than Jokic, while also having a similar (and more portable) lift. Kawhi just didn’t have much around him in 2017, and I think if he’d stayed healthy the Spurs might have actually won that series. Giannis similarly has fewer weaknesses (despite the lack of 3pt shooting), and like Kawhi kills it on both ends of the floor without warping your whole defence as Jokic does. Curry is only a decent defensive player at best, but he plays the position where defence matters the least, so he hurts you the least and is more portable also. Shaq just peaked higher, and had more impact on the floor, plus was less of a liability on both ends. I expect I’ll get no support for Kawhi, but I don’t care. He was insane in 2017, and basically had an out of body experience those playoffs (even moreso than in 2019).

1. Shaq (2001)
2. Kawhi (2017, then 2019)
3. Curry (2015 I guess)
4. Giannis (2021)

HM: KG, Jokic, Luka, KD, SGA, CP3, Harden, Nash, T-Mac, Wade, and Dirk.

ReggiesKnicks · Post #11 » by **ReggiesKnicks** » Mon Sep 1, 2025 5:18 am

1. Kevin Garnett 2004 (2003, 2008)
2. Steph Curry 2017 (2016, 2015)
3. Shaquille O'Neal 2002 (2001)
4. Nikola Jokic 2023 (2024, 2025)

Wow, what an incredible rounding out of the Top 5 for the 25-year period and even Top 6.

RE Garnett: Dominant two-way player who is a cut above the rest for me at #3. Peaked in an era of small courts, limited spacing, and inept offensive mindsets spanning the Association. Proved his value and scalability on talented rosters as he moved to Boston and didn't miss a beat.

RE: Curry, Shaq and Jokic: I come away being slightly less impressed with Jokic and more impressed with Shaq, mostly because there is a larger burden of proof for Shaq to reach the sky-high, ATG levels in the post-season compared to Jokic. Curry falls short of the two-way monstrosities in Garnett and Duncan, though in a more impactful centerpiece of an offense compared to Shaq and Jokic.

I may be in the minority here, but after these 6, it gets really interesting.

70sFan · Post #12 » by **70sFan** » Mon Sep 1, 2025 6:57 am

One_and_Done wrote:Looking at Jokic’s last 3 years, which people will use when citing his “peak” performance, we see his teams only won 53, 57, and 50 games, with middling SRS, and were bumped in the 2nd round twice (once by a team that was really nothing special). That should give us pause. Jokic’s advocates will say that it’s not his fault, and if you look at RAPMVORPCOPTER he was a god. In short, I don’t agree. I think Jokic has had plenty of help around him to achieve more. That may sound harsh, and if we were comparing him to the likes of Kobe or Karl Malone then it would indeed be a harsh assessment. But Jokic is being compared to the best of the best, guys like Duncan and Lebron who did indeed carry worse teams to better results. Of course, those 2 are in now, but I think plenty of remaining names show more capability to lift their teams than Jokic.

Yes, Shaq often had good teams around him, but then let’s look at the times that wasn’t so. The Lakers with Shaq and without Kobe from 00-04, and they play like a 60+ win team with Shaq and no Kobe, but are a sub-500 team with Kobe and without Shaq. Those Kobe-less support casts were far worse than anything Jokic played with. But then you look further. Shaq was always the best player on his team until 06, and you can see lots of samples that show his substantial lift. For instance, the 96 Magic were 40-14 with Shaq, and only 20-8 without him. The 97 Lakers were 38-13 with Shaq, but only 18-13 without him. The 98 Lakers were 46-14 with him, but only 15-7 without him. I could go on. Shaq in 2005 was the last legitimate year of full-time prime Shaq, and the Heat won 59 that year. The next year with Shaq’s drop off they fell to 52 wins, then 44, then 15, then 43. Obviously Wade was hurt in the 15 win season, but the clear drop off was largely due on the absence of a prime Shaq. The Magic dropped from 60 wins to 45 after he left. Even rookie Shaq saw his team improve 20 wins, and that was far from peak Shaq.

It is an interesting discussion, especially with the relative lack of postseason success from Jokic, but this part is a little confusing to me.

You say that Shaq kept getting 60 wins every year and you also point out that his teams like 1998 Lakers went "only 15-7 without him". Well, 2023-25 Nuggets went 11-17 without Jokic, which is a 32 wins pace. It's true that 2000-04 Lakers had mediocre winning record without Shaq, but they were still considerably better than that.

Jokic teams are less talented than Shaq's, it doesn't mean that Shaq results aren't more impressive but it's just a fact.

Shaq’s huge lift was there, and in the playoffs he was just as devastating. I look at Jokic’s team, and I find it hard to buy that his impact is as big as his numbers suggest when he has such good players around him. Jamal Murray has had his ups and downs, but when healthy he’s an all-star calibre guard. When Jokic did go all the way, Murray was healthy and looked unbelievably good. A.Gordon is a borderline all-star. Michael Porter is gone now, but he got a max for a reason. The dude is a good player, and we’ll probably be reminded of that now that he’s more of a focal point player for the Nets. There was usually a good 3&D guy to round out the starting 5 too, and sometimes a few good bench players. A player with one of the best peaks ever needs to be doing more with a team like that.

What is the reason for that in your opinion? What do you think Jokic lacks in his game that prevented him from reaching the heights of the other players here? Is this all his limited defense, or do you find any glaring weakness in his offensive game as well?

Jaivl · Post #13 » by **Jaivl** » Mon Sep 1, 2025 8:00 am

One_and_Done wrote:But then you look further. Shaq was always the best player on his team until 06, and you can see lots of samples that show his substantial lift. For instance, the 96 Magic were 40-14 with Shaq, and only 20-8 without him. The 97 Lakers were 38-13 with Shaq, but only 18-13 without him. The 98 Lakers were 46-14 with him, but only 15-7 without him. I could go on.

Please do, cause... where's the huge impact again?
59 win pace -> 59 win pace
61 win pace -> 48 win pace
63 win pace -> 56 win pace

Shaq in 2005 was the last legitimate year of full-time prime Shaq, and the Heat won 59 that year. The next year with Shaq’s drop off they fell to 52 wins, then 44, then 15, then 43. Obviously Wade was hurt in the 15 win season, but the clear drop off was largely due on the absence of a prime Shaq.

Dude...

One_and_Done · Post #14 » by **One_and_Done** » Mon Sep 1, 2025 8:04 am

Jaivl wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:But then you look further. Shaq was always the best player on his team until 06, and you can see lots of samples that show his substantial lift. For instance, the 96 Magic were 40-14 with Shaq, and only 20-8 without him. The 97 Lakers were 38-13 with Shaq, but only 18-13 without him. The 98 Lakers were 46-14 with him, but only 15-7 without him. I could go on.

Please do, cause... where's the huge impact again?
59 win pace -> 59 win pace
61 win pace -> 48 win pace
63 win pace -> 56 win pace

Shaq in 2005 was the last legitimate year of full-time prime Shaq, and the Heat won 59 that year. The next year with Shaq’s drop off they fell to 52 wins, then 44, then 15, then 43. Obviously Wade was hurt in the 15 win season, but the clear drop off was largely due on the absence of a prime Shaq.

Dude...

I'm talking about the drop off from 59 wins with prime Shaq, down to low 40s without him.

Also important to note that win totals don't increase on a linear progression. It's much harder to turn a 40 win team into a 60 win team than a 20 win team into a 40 win team. Each wins becomes more difficult the higher your win total.

70sFan · Post #15 » by **70sFan** » Mon Sep 1, 2025 8:26 am

One_and_Done wrote:Also important to note that win totals don't increase on a linear progression. It's much harder to turn a 40 win team into a 60 win team than a 20 win team into a 40 win team. Each wins becomes more difficult the higher your win total.

You keep repeating that but it doesn't answer the questions people ask. It's not about what is more impressive, it's that Jokic never played with a team that could play at 45+ wins pace without him.

One_and_Done · Post #16 » by **One_and_Done** » Mon Sep 1, 2025 8:44 am

70sFan wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:Also important to note that win totals don't increase on a linear progression. It's much harder to turn a 40 win team into a 60 win team than a 20 win team into a 40 win team. Each wins becomes more difficult the higher your win total.

You keep repeating that but it doesn't answer the questions people ask. It's not about what is more impressive, it's that Jokic never played with a team that could play at 45+ wins pace without him.

1) He also never played for one with the high end outcomes guys like Shaq produced.
2) I'm not sure that's even true, because the sample of his games missed over 3 seasons is small and often coincided with other guys getting rested. For instance, let's take 2023. The team was 5-8 without him, and that looks bad... but here's who was missing for those 8 losses:
- loss vs Knicks (no Gordon or Jokic)
- loss vs Dallas (no Gordon, Murray or Jokic)
- loss vs OKC (no Porter or Jokic)
- loss vs Bucks (no Porter, KCP, Murray, or Jokic)
- loss vs Wolves (no Murray, Gordon, KCP, or Jokic)
- loss vs the Pels (ok, everyone else was playing for this one)
- loss vs Suns (no Murray, Porter, KCP, or Jokic)
- loss vs Suns (all starters sat)

So when you actually break it down, I'm not so sure the Nuggets weren't a 48 win team without Jokic. 7 of their 8 losses come with multiple starters missing, 5 of them had at least 3 starters out. I dunno, it looks to me like the Nuggets just rested guys and gave up most of these games. Some of those were close losses to good teams too. Given the talent on the roster I think they're certainly a 500+ winning team without Jokic. We'd probably find similar results for the other 15 games Jokic missed over 24 and 25, especially given Murray's health was bad even when he did play for some of those games. In 24 they were 2-1 without Jokic, and the loss was a close defeat at the hands of OKC.

70sFan · Post #17 » by **70sFan** » Mon Sep 1, 2025 9:21 am

One_and_Done wrote:
70sFan wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:Also important to note that win totals don't increase on a linear progression. It's much harder to turn a 40 win team into a 60 win team than a 20 win team into a 40 win team. Each wins becomes more difficult the higher your win total.

You keep repeating that but it doesn't answer the questions people ask. It's not about what is more impressive, it's that Jokic never played with a team that could play at 45+ wins pace without him.

1) He also never played for one with the high end outcomes guys like Shaq produced.
2) I'm not sure that's even true, because the sample of his games missed over 3 seasons is small and often coincided with other guys getting rested. For instance, let's take 2023. The team was 5-8 without him, and that looks bad... but here's who was missing for those 8 losses:
- loss vs Knicks (no Gordon or Jokic)
- loss vs Dallas (no Gordon, Murray or Jokic)
- loss vs OKC (no Porter or Jokic)
- loss vs Bucks (no Porter, KCP, Murray, or Jokic)
- loss vs Wolves (no Murray, Gordon, KCP, or Jokic)
- loss vs the Pels (ok, everyone else was playing for this one)
- loss vs Suns (no Murray, Porter, KCP, or Jokic)
- loss vs Suns (all starters sat)

So when you actually break it down, I'm not so sure the Nuggets weren't a 48 win team without Jokic. 7 of their 8 losses come with multiple starters missing, 5 of them had at least 3 starters out. I dunno, it looks to me like the Nuggets just rested guys and gave up most of these games. Some of those were close losses to good teams too. Given the talent on the roster I think they're certainly a 500+ winning team without Jokic. We'd probably find similar results for the other 15 games Jokic missed over 24 and 25, especially given Murray's health was bad even when he did play for some of those games. In 24 they were 2-1 without Jokic, and the loss was a close defeat at the hands of OKC.

If only you have enough intellectual honesty to do the same work for 2004 Lakers where 5 of 8 Lakers losses without Shaq happened when Kobe also didn't play and they miss Karl Malone in all these losses...

Of course you ignore 2001 sample and go with later Lakers years without contextualising, but 2-1 Nuggets record from 2024 is now some kind of evidence of Nuggets being good without Jokic... even though none of the available data gives even the slightest evidence of that being true. Shaq's late 1990s data on the other hand prove he's much better, because his team played at "only" 50 wins pace without him.

One_and_Done · Post #18 » by **One_and_Done** » Mon Sep 1, 2025 9:31 am

70sFan wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:
70sFan wrote:You keep repeating that but it doesn't answer the questions people ask. It's not about what is more impressive, it's that Jokic never played with a team that could play at 45+ wins pace without him.

1) He also never played for one with the high end outcomes guys like Shaq produced.
2) I'm not sure that's even true, because the sample of his games missed over 3 seasons is small and often coincided with other guys getting rested. For instance, let's take 2023. The team was 5-8 without him, and that looks bad... but here's who was missing for those 8 losses:
- loss vs Knicks (no Gordon or Jokic)
- loss vs Dallas (no Gordon, Murray or Jokic)
- loss vs OKC (no Porter or Jokic)
- loss vs Bucks (no Porter, KCP, Murray, or Jokic)
- loss vs Wolves (no Murray, Gordon, KCP, or Jokic)
- loss vs the Pels (ok, everyone else was playing for this one)
- loss vs Suns (no Murray, Porter, KCP, or Jokic)
- loss vs Suns (all starters sat)

So when you actually break it down, I'm not so sure the Nuggets weren't a 48 win team without Jokic. 7 of their 8 losses come with multiple starters missing, 5 of them had at least 3 starters out. I dunno, it looks to me like the Nuggets just rested guys and gave up most of these games. Some of those were close losses to good teams too. Given the talent on the roster I think they're certainly a 500+ winning team without Jokic. We'd probably find similar results for the other 15 games Jokic missed over 24 and 25, especially given Murray's health was bad even when he did play for some of those games. In 24 they were 2-1 without Jokic, and the loss was a close defeat at the hands of OKC.

If only you have enough intellectual honesty to do the same work for 2004 Lakers where 5 of 8 Lakers losses without Shaq happened when Kobe also didn't play and they miss Karl Malone in all these losses...

Of course you ignore 2001 sample and go with later Lakers years without contextualising, but 2-1 Nuggets record from 2024 is now some kind of evidence of Nuggets being good without Jokic... even though none of the available data gives even the slightest evidence of that being true. Shaq's late 1990s data on the other hand prove he's much better, because his team played at "only" 50 wins pace without him.

In the games Kobe played and Shaq didn't, from 00-04, the Lakers were 23-26, a sub-500 record. In games with Shaq and no Kobe, they played at a 60+ win pace. My comparison only included games Kobe did play without him.

70sFan · Post #19 » by **70sFan** » Mon Sep 1, 2025 9:38 am

One_and_Done wrote:
70sFan wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:1) He also never played for one with the high end outcomes guys like Shaq produced.
2) I'm not sure that's even true, because the sample of his games missed over 3 seasons is small and often coincided with other guys getting rested. For instance, let's take 2023. The team was 5-8 without him, and that looks bad... but here's who was missing for those 8 losses:
- loss vs Knicks (no Gordon or Jokic)
- loss vs Dallas (no Gordon, Murray or Jokic)
- loss vs OKC (no Porter or Jokic)
- loss vs Bucks (no Porter, KCP, Murray, or Jokic)
- loss vs Wolves (no Murray, Gordon, KCP, or Jokic)
- loss vs the Pels (ok, everyone else was playing for this one)
- loss vs Suns (no Murray, Porter, KCP, or Jokic)
- loss vs Suns (all starters sat)

So when you actually break it down, I'm not so sure the Nuggets weren't a 48 win team without Jokic. 7 of their 8 losses come with multiple starters missing, 5 of them had at least 3 starters out. I dunno, it looks to me like the Nuggets just rested guys and gave up most of these games. Some of those were close losses to good teams too. Given the talent on the roster I think they're certainly a 500+ winning team without Jokic. We'd probably find similar results for the other 15 games Jokic missed over 24 and 25, especially given Murray's health was bad even when he did play for some of those games. In 24 they were 2-1 without Jokic, and the loss was a close defeat at the hands of OKC.

If only you have enough intellectual honesty to do the same work for 2004 Lakers where 5 of 8 Lakers losses without Shaq happened when Kobe also didn't play and they miss Karl Malone in all these losses...

Of course you ignore 2001 sample and go with later Lakers years without contextualising, but 2-1 Nuggets record from 2024 is now some kind of evidence of Nuggets being good without Jokic... even though none of the available data gives even the slightest evidence of that being true. Shaq's late 1990s data on the other hand prove he's much better, because his team played at "only" 50 wins pace without him.

In the games Kobe played and Shaq didn't, from 00-04, the Lakers were 23-26, a sub-500 record. In games with Shaq and no Kobe, they played at a 60+ win pace. My comparison only included games Kobe did play without him.

Show me the source.

One_and_Done · Post #20 » by **One_and_Done** » Mon Sep 1, 2025 9:46 am

70sFan wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:
70sFan wrote:If only you have enough intellectual honesty to do the same work for 2004 Lakers where 5 of 8 Lakers losses without Shaq happened when Kobe also didn't play and they miss Karl Malone in all these losses...

Of course you ignore 2001 sample and go with later Lakers years without contextualising, but 2-1 Nuggets record from 2024 is now some kind of evidence of Nuggets being good without Jokic... even though none of the available data gives even the slightest evidence of that being true. Shaq's late 1990s data on the other hand prove he's much better, because his team played at "only" 50 wins pace without him.

In the games Kobe played and Shaq didn't, from 00-04, the Lakers were 23-26, a sub-500 record. In games with Shaq and no Kobe, they played at a 60+ win pace. My comparison only included games Kobe did play without him.

Show me the source.

I manually counted it from basketball reference a while back, though it was something much cited at the time so it's not like I can claim credit.