Why is there silence after another Jokic embarrassing defeat?

[Mirotic12]

I’m not sure whar you are trying to argue, but the one with overwhelmingly more talent and better teams is the highest competition level. It’s not the Eurobasket one lmfao. It’s not only lower without the USA and other teams, it’s laughably lower.

The Olympics is the lower level tournament. It's easy as hell to make the last 8 at the Olympics. EuroBasket is the stronger tournament. It's not even close either.

This isn’t even a serious debate to have, because it's so incredibly obvious that the EuroBasket is a higher level competition.

[Mirotic12]

Why is there silence after another Jokic embarrassing defeat?

To paraphrase:

Why is there silence on an American message board where we talk primarily about an American professional league dominated by American players when something happens in a minor non-American event that Americans don't watch?

I don't know man, it's quite the mystery.

FIBA EuroBasket isn't a minor event.

[Cubbies2120]

So when Jokic can't get out of the second round in the NBA, his fans are quick to dissect and belittle/blame everybody around him for why a supposed top 10 player of all time can't win.

But what's the excuse for when Jokic and his heavily favored Serbian team can't even get out of the round of 16 in the EuroBasket?

Fiba is calling Serbias shocking loss to Finland the upset of the century. Finland has one active NBA player in Markkanen and he's empty stat tweener in the NBA.

Whats more disturbing about Serbia's loss was how it happened. Jokic was attacked relentlessly in the 4th qtr of the game, just as he was targeted in the Olympics against USA and in NBA playoffs. Nearly every big basket came at the expense of Jokic who some swear is above average NBA defender.

I am just wondering at what point do the excuses end and we start to question Jokic's impact on winning, not just putting up pretty stats. Former NBA player and Serbian national Darko Milicic stated that he knew the Serbian team was cooked as soon as Bogdan Bogdanović was injured. He states that the team can do without Jokic but not Bogdan Bogdanović. That's a pretty damming thing to say about a guy who is supposed to be the best player in the world and top 10 all time. https://www.basketballnetwork.net/international/darko-milicic-questions-nikola-jokics-impact-on-serbia-national-team

Meanwhile guys like Luka and Giannis who have way less talented teams have advanced further in the EuroBasket and they are carrying their teams. Even Luka is out there playing lock down defense in addition to scoring half of his teams points.

Can we finally call a spade a spade on what Jokic is and isn't?

On your first point:

Since becoming an MVP candidate, Jokic has lost to
NBA Champion
NBA Champion
WC Champion
Dominant 16-4 NBA Champ run
Wolves
NBA Champion

Not like he's losing to teams who can't even sniff the finals...

And lets count the # of all stars on his team during each of these runs...I'll wait

[psimanic1]

As soon as Bogdan went down, they were not favorites anymore...You look at Nuggets past seasons, and you see that for Jokic team to really be good, you need shooters around him, actual shooters not guys that "can make it", and what you have? You have two guys shooting 2/14 from 3pt and still loosing by 6..If you had just one more actual shooter, and I'm sure Serbia has those, they probably have one of the biggest players pool in Europe they would probably still be in it. And when you have Jokic, you don't need 4 centers, they had 3 Jokic, Petrusev and Milutinov, and they also had Vukcevic who can play C...

Not really at the top tier though. In the FIBA windows, without NBA and EuroLeague players, they have barely qualified a few times now, against quite weak competition.

Just for European teams, France, Lithuania, Germany, and Greece are clearly deeper. Especially France and Greece.

Spain is also for sure much deeper with their second, third, and fourth tier players, but their A list players are fairly average now. So that's debatable, depending on how you want to look at it.

Depth of player pool wise, Serbia and Turkey are probably the teams that come next after those other ones.

yes but in fiba window you don't have Jokic, so you cant really use same players(IMO) because you are not playing same basketball, that's why I'm saying, having one more shooter instead of one of the centers would do wonders with this team, you can't really bring only Bogdanovic because you know anything can happen...juts my few cents

[Mirotic12]

yes but in fiba window you don't have Jokic, so you cant really use same players(IMO) because you are not playing same basketball, that's why I'm saying, having one more shooter instead of one of the centers would do wonders with this team, you can't really bring only Bogdanovic because you know anything can happen...juts my few cents

Yeah, that's true.

[Doctor MJ]

Why is there silence after another Jokic embarrassing defeat?

To paraphrase:

Why is there silence on an American message board where we talk primarily about an American professional league dominated by American players when something happens in a minor non-American event that Americans don't watch?

I don't know man, it's quite the mystery.

FIBA EuroBasket isn't a minor event.

To Americans it is, hence, silence is to be expected.

[Doctor MJ]

I’m not sure whar you are trying to argue, but the one with overwhelmingly more talent and better teams is the highest competition level. It’s not the Eurobasket one lmfao. It’s not only lower without the USA and other teams, it’s laughably lower.

The Olympics is the lower level tournament. It's easy as hell to make the last 8 at the Olympics. EuroBasket is the stronger tournament. It's not even close either.

This isn’t even a serious debate to have, because it's so incredibly obvious that the EuroBasket is a higher level competition.

Generally competition level is about what it takes to win.

The hardest competition for any non-American nation to win has always been the Olympics, because that's the one Americans care about.

[Mirotic12]

Generally competition level is about what it takes to win.

The hardest competition for any non-American nation to win has always been the Olympics, because that's the one Americans care about.

Using that criteria, the EuroBasket is better than the Olympics.

It would be much harder for the USA to win the EuroBasket, than it is for them to win the Olympics. And the USA would fail to win the EuroBasket much more often than they fail to win the Olympics.

[NO-KG-AI]

I’m not sure whar you are trying to argue, but the one with overwhelmingly more talent and better teams is the highest competition level. It’s not the Eurobasket one lmfao. It’s not only lower without the USA and other teams, it’s laughably lower.

The Olympics is the lower level tournament. It's easy as hell to make the last 8 at the Olympics. EuroBasket is the stronger tournament. It's not even close either.

This isn’t even a serious debate to have, because it's so incredibly obvious that the EuroBasket is a higher level competition.

It’s not a debate at all. The quality of basketball players is so substantially lower than anything with US involvement that there is nothing to debate. It’s like arguing winning a division title is harder than winning an NBA title.

You want it to be more important because the US isn’t there lmao.

[Dick Tate]

Because that fat chubby Euro should have 5 MVPs according to most fans and is being called the best player since Michael Jordan. And that is an outright lie when you say he doesn't inspire many feelings on here positive or negative when the guy has a whole cult on here.

When he loses, its everyone else's fault. When he doesn't shoot in the entire 2nd half of a game 7 as he's being guarded by a 6'4 player, it's swept under the rug. When LeBron got guarded by little JJ Barea in the finals, we didn't hear the end of it.
When Kobe Bryant doesn't shoot, he's a quitter. With Jokic, its oh they are lucky to have even been dragged to game 7 by Jokic. When Jokic loses historic game 7 collapse on his homecourt to Minny I don't hear a word of it. But I still see pics of Joel Embiid crying when Kawhis shot went in. Why are only certain players scrutinized and made fun of in their failings?

Im just asking for RealGM to keep that same energy when their golden boy comes up short. I think Jokic is a great player, but he doesn't impact winning on the highest of levels like other all time greats.

I have never seen Jokic win a nba playoff series he wasnt favored in outside of Clippers 2020 bubble. I haven't seen him elevate his team and beat a team he wasnt supposed to beat, but ended up defeating because he was too great to be denied. And now in the Euros, when his national team is heavily favored, he can't get the job done without Bogdan Bogdanovic.

The man has only ever been to two conference finals in his career and we are calling him better than Hakeem? Nonsense.

Classic post. I just don't understand how anyone could think this is a troll thread?

[SpurNani]

I can't even tell what OP wants. Should we not call Jokic the best player in the world because he's lost some important games? Who exactly are we supposed to give that title to then? Luka, who just had the worst year of his career since his rookie season? Or Giannis, who hasn't been out of the first round in years? Shai then I guess?

I'm guessing he really really wants that answer to be Wemby.

I think there's 4 players - Jokic, Shai, Luka, Giannis who can all hold claim to being called the best player in the world.

I dont think Jokic has done enough or accomplished enough to be considered the unquestioned best. His playoff resume is thin outside of a historically weak 2023 NBA playoff field.

Why would you put Giannis on this list, considering his playoff resume is weaker? He's hasn't made it out of the first round in years. How is Luka on this list, considering he's never even won a championship? Clearly, you can't have this discussion with any sense of objectivity.

What Luka did in 24 playoffs was far more impressive than what Jokic did in 23 playoffs when you consider the competition faced by both respective teams.

Luka carried his team past 3 50 win teams, including the Timberwolves who took Jokic out in 24 and the OKC Thunder who took Jokic out the following year. Oh and none took him 7 games to do so. He just so happened to run into the Celtics who were one of the greatest teams we've seen this decade.

Contrast that to Jokic in 23, who beat play in Timberwolves who were missing Naz Reid, Jaden McDaniels, hurt Rudy Gobert. They beat the Suns who had KD and Booker and basically nobody else. KD and Booker only played 13 total games together before Jokic faced them in playoffs.

And they beat 43 win play in Lakers with 39 year old Lebron and Anthony Davis, who isn't a true center. And then they beat the Miami Heat who lost their first play in game. Miami was also without their most dynamic young scorer in Tyler Herro.

Jokic just beat his first 50 win team this this year. Luka beat 3 50 win teams in 24 alone and led the entire playoffs in points, rebounds, assists. Just vastly different levels of competition ill take Luka in 24 over Jokic 23.

[Doctor MJ]

Generally competition level is about what it takes to win.

The hardest competition for any non-American nation to win has always been the Olympics, because that's the one Americans care about.

Using that criteria, the EuroBasket is better than the Olympics.

It would be much harder for the USA to win the EuroBasket, than it is for them to win the Olympics. And the USA would fail to win the EuroBasket much more often than they fail to win the Olympics.

Let's take a step back here:

If we can agree that defining "level of competition" for a tournament is one number for the whole tournament, then it shouldn't be something that gives a different value for every team in the tournament.

I'm saying generally that level of competition is defined based on the best team you have to beat in order to win 1st place. You're free to disagree on that definition of course, but that's not what you're doing in this post. You're literally trying to argue that it's harder to win a tournament the USA doesn't play in than to win a tournament the USA does play in and take seriously, and you have to know that's not true.

I feel like you're wanting to have a definition based on the average level of play over the whole tournament or something like that, and while you're free to do that, and I can see the logic of it in many situations, it's a problem in basketball because one competitor nation has traditionally been vastly better than everyone else, and that competitor only takes the Olympics seriously.

Are there some weak teams in the Olympics due to their goal of global representation? Sure, but every single non-USA nation knows that the hardest thing to do in international competition is beat the USA at the Olympics, and so if they don't see that as the gold standard, they're just admitting that they don't expect to be able to beat the best, and their focusing their passions on lesser competitors they can hope to beat.

To be the best, you have to beat the best, and that means beating team USA's A-team.

[Doctor MJ]

I’m not sure whar you are trying to argue, but the one with overwhelmingly more talent and better teams is the highest competition level. It’s not the Eurobasket one lmfao. It’s not only lower without the USA and other teams, it’s laughably lower.

The Olympics is the lower level tournament. It's easy as hell to make the last 8 at the Olympics. EuroBasket is the stronger tournament. It's not even close either.

This isn’t even a serious debate to have, because it's so incredibly obvious that the EuroBasket is a higher level competition.

It’s not a debate at all. The quality of basketball players is so substantially lower than anything with US involvement that there is nothing to debate. It’s like arguing winning a division title is harder than winning an NBA title.

You want it to be more important because the US isn’t there lmao.

Yeah, I really do think these European fans are sincere when they say they care more about FIBA World Cup & EuroBasket than Olympic basketball, and there's nothing wrong with them feeling that way to be clear, but when they try to talk as if it's a problem for team USA's rep that they don't take the World Cup seriously, they have it backwards. The World Cup is the one with the credibility problem every time team USA only sends their best to the Olympics, and folks best believe that the World Cup understands this all too well.

[Nate505]

There's silence because most people aren't paying attention to a second rate tournament.

Higher level than the Olympics or the World Cup?

Not in terms of prestige, at least in the most important country (by far) when it comes to basketball.

EuroBasket is a stronger tournament than the Olympics or the World Cup.

So the "higher prestige" tournaments are actually the ones that are second rate (World Cup), and third rate (Olympics).

The actual level of the competition on the court, is more important than the level of the media hype, marketing, product sponsors, advertising, and commercials (otherwise termed "the prestige").

Sure, because the world stage of basketball is pretty much:

1) The US
2) The US
3) The US
4) The US
5) The US
6-30) A mix of Canada/Argentina/Brazil/Australia/European teams
31+) Everyone else

So when you limit a tournament to the middle of the road international teams, you get a better tournament. However, you still don't get by far without question the historical and current best basketball nation on the planet. It would be like a World Cup without Brazil, Argentina, Germany, France, or Spain, but cutting out the Saudi Arabia and Qatars of the world. It would still be a mix of decent teams, but the sole fact the US is not in it limits its prestige.

[NZB2323]

Sure. Let's call a spade a spade on what Jokic is...the current best player in the world.

The current best player who can't get out the second round in NBA and can't lead his heavily favored national team past the round of 16 without Bogdan Bogdanovic

1. Jokic has a NBA championship.

2. This was a single elimination tournament. It’s a sample size of 1.

3. Jokic had 37, 8, and 3, 3 steals, on 69% shooting.

4. Jokic shot 1-2 from 3. His teammates shot 10-35. Maybe his teammates shooting 30% from downtown had something to do with the loss? Maybe if they played 10 times his teammates would make more 3s?

5. Who was the best player in the NBA in 1988, 2010, and 1972? You can be the best player and lose in the 2nd round.

[Blame Rasho]

Generally competition level is about what it takes to win.

The hardest competition for any non-American nation to win has always been the Olympics, because that's the one Americans care about.

Using that criteria, the EuroBasket is better than the Olympics.

It would be much harder for the USA to win the EuroBasket, than it is for them to win the Olympics. And the USA would fail to win the EuroBasket much more often than they fail to win the Olympics.

Let's take a step back here:

If we can agree that defining "level of competition" for a tournament is one number for the whole tournament, then it shouldn't be something that gives a different value for every team in the tournament.

I'm saying generally that level of competition is defined based on the best team you have to beat in order to win 1st place. You're free to disagree on that definition of course, but that's not what you're doing in this post. You're literally trying to argue that it's harder to win a tournament the USA doesn't play in than to win a tournament the USA does play in and take seriously, and you have to know that's not true.

I feel like you're wanting to have a definition based on the average level of play over the whole tournament or something like that, and while you're free to do that, and I can see the logic of it in many situations, it's a problem in basketball because one competitor nation has traditionally been vastly better than everyone else, and that competitor only takes the Olympics seriously.

Are there some weak teams in the Olympics due to their goal of global representation? Sure, but every single non-USA nation knows that the hardest thing to do in international competition is beat the USA at the Olympics, and so if they don't see that as the gold standard, they're just admitting that they don't expect to be able to beat the best, and their focusing their passions on lesser competitors they can hope to beat.

To be the best, you have to beat the best, and that means beating team USA's A-team.

Why are you arguing with a 197 IQ poster who constantly edits the wiki page of a player who missed his mommy when he was in the NBA… you should know. For shame… For shame…

[knicksfan974]

There's silence because most people aren't paying attention to a second rate tournament.

Not in terms of prestige, at least in the most important country (by far) when it comes to basketball.

EuroBasket is a stronger tournament than the Olympics or the World Cup.

So the "higher prestige" tournaments are actually the ones that are second rate (World Cup), and third rate (Olympics).

The actual level of the competition on the court, is more important than the level of the media hype, marketing, product sponsors, advertising, and commercials (otherwise termed "the prestige").

Sure, because the world stage of basketball is pretty much:

1) The US
2) The US
3) The US
4) The US
5) The US
6-30) A mix of Canada/Argentina/Brazil/Australia/European teams
31+) Everyone else

So when you limit a tournament to the middle of the road international teams, you get a better tournament. However, you still don't get by far without question the historical and current best basketball nation on the planet. It would be like a World Cup without Brazil, Argentina, Germany, France, or Spain, but cutting out the Saudi Arabia and Qatars of the world. It would still be a mix of decent teams, but the sole fact the US is not in it limits its prestige.

On another thread I was told by americans that they had to resort to adding Embiid (Cameroonian) to the national team because american centers are so awful. Looks to me like the days of american exceptionilism in basketball are long gone. There is no guarantee of american gold anymore.

[Nate505]

On another thread I was told by americans that they had to resort to adding Embiid (Cameroonian) to the national team because american centers are so awful. Looks to me like the days of american exceptionilism in basketball are long gone. There is no guarantee of american gold anymore.

Ok?

Here are the Gold Medal winners since the first dream team:

1992: USA
1996: USA
2000: USA
2004: Argentina
2008: USA
2012: USA
2016: USA
2020: USA
2024: USA

Then there's the overall record since basketball has been an Olympic Sport: 17-3, and frankly it should have been 18-2, but the refs felt like replaying the ending three times until they got the result they wanted. Oh well, an 0.85 winning percentage is still pretty good, and that's a winning percentage for gold medals.

Oh, and the US has an Olympic record of 105-6 in all games, of a 0.95 winning percentage, with three of those six losses being in 2004. Just beating the US in a single game at the Olympics is a noteworthy achievement.

I mean, if in every year since George H Walker Bush was President you took the US vs the field, you would have won just about all of it. Seems pretty exceptional to me, and other than 20 years ago, pretty guaranteed.

Embiid chose to play for the US because he wanted a gold medal. He would have got jack squat with Cameroon. Maybe if he played for France it would have gave the US some better competition.

[Infinite Llamas]

I think there's 4 players - Jokic, Shai, Luka, Giannis who can all hold claim to being called the best player in the world.

I dont think Jokic has done enough or accomplished enough to be considered the unquestioned best. His playoff resume is thin outside of a historically weak 2023 NBA playoff field.

Why would you put Giannis on this list, considering his playoff resume is weaker? He's hasn't made it out of the first round in years. How is Luka on this list, considering he's never even won a championship? Clearly, you can't have this discussion with any sense of objectivity.

What Luka did in 24 playoffs was far more impressive than what Jokic did in 23 playoffs when you consider the competition faced by both respective teams.

Luka carried his team past 3 50 win teams, including the Timberwolves who took Jokic out in 24 and the OKC Thunder who took Jokic out the following year. Oh and none took him 7 games to do so. He just so happened to run into the Celtics who were one of the greatest teams we've seen this decade.

Contrast that to Jokic in 23, who beat play in Timberwolves who were missing Naz Reid, Jaden McDaniels, hurt Rudy Gobert. They beat the Suns who had KD and Booker and basically nobody else. KD and Booker only played 13 total games together before Jokic faced them in playoffs.

And they beat 43 win play in Lakers with 39 year old Lebron and Anthony Davis, who isn't a true center. And then they beat the Miami Heat who lost their first play in game. Miami was also without their most dynamic young scorer in Tyler Herro.

Jokic just beat his first 50 win team this this year. Luka beat 3 50 win teams in 24 alone and led the entire playoffs in points, rebounds, assists. Just vastly different levels of competition ill take Luka in 24 over Jokic 23.

Luka was also playing alongside a future HOF player. So giving all the credit to Luka and saying he “carried” is misleading. Irving/Gafford/PJ/Lively/DJJ is one hell of a supporting cast.

But yes. Keep on lambasting people who give Jokic all the credit for their wins and be sure to look in a mirror at some point.

[knicksfan974]

On another thread I was told by americans that they had to resort to adding Embiid (Cameroonian) to the national team because american centers are so awful. Looks to me like the days of american exceptionilism in basketball are long gone. There is no guarantee of american gold anymore.

Ok?

Here are the Gold Medal winners since the first dream team:

1992: USA
1996: USA
2000: USA
2004: Argentina
2008: USA
2012: USA
2016: USA
2020: USA
2024: USA

Then there's the overall record since basketball has been an Olympic Sport: 17-3, and frankly it should have been 18-2, but the refs felt like replaying the ending three times until they got the result they wanted. Oh well, an 0.85 winning percentage is still pretty good, and that's a winning percentage for gold medals.

Oh, and the US has an Olympic record of 105-6 in all games, of a 0.95 winning percentage, with three of those six losses being in 2004. Just beating the US in a single game at the Olympics is a noteworthy achievement.

I mean, if in every year since George H Walker Bush was President you took the US vs the field, you would have won just about all of it. Seems pretty exceptional to me, and other than 20 years ago, pretty guaranteed.

Embiid chose to play for the US because he wanted a gold medal. He would have got jack squat with Cameroon. Maybe if he played for France it would have gave the US some better competition.

USA basketball history is impressive, sure, no argument there. But the international competition is catching up all the time and there are no guarantees of gold anymore. Nowadays the absolute best players in the world are not even american anymore.