Who's ring was more important to their legacy: Jokic or Giannis

[guynumber45]

Who's ring was more important to their legacy: Jokic or Giannis

[hugepatsfan]

Not sure either was more important.

I guess I'll say Giannis because I think, had he retired without a ring, the narrative might have been that despite his great box score numbers maybe he wasn't quite the "offensive engine" type needed to carry a whole team on offense enough to win a ring. With Jokic, he's obviously an all time great offensive engine type player so the narrative might have been he never got the right mix around him of good defenders/off ball players to compete.

[MrGoat]

It's roughly even, that's a tough call. I'll lean Giannis because his Finals performance was a little more impressive and he was playing a better team so I say it is a slightly more important part of his legacy, but it's not like the ring isn't a pretty important part of the legacy for Jokic too

[Doctor MJ]

Who's ring was more important to their legacy: Jokic or Giannis

I'm going to say Jokic because he's a far less traditional superstar and many just plain refused to believe you could win a title led by someone with his athletic short-comings.

With that said, because we saw MVP Giannis' teams get upset like we did, we also got to see the knives really come out for Giannis in a way I don't think they ever quite did with Jokic, and oh my, those knives would be utterly impaling Giannis by this point as a guy whose teams failed to reach the finish line over and over and over again.

[GiannisAnte34]

Who's ring was more important to their legacy: Jokic or Giannis

I'm going to say Jokic because he's a far less traditional superstar and many just plain refused to believe you could win a title led by someone with his athletic short-comings.

With that said, because we saw MVP Giannis' teams get upset like we did, we also got to see the knives really come out for Giannis in a way I don't think they ever quite did with Jokic, and oh my, those knives would be utterly impaling Giannis by this point as a guy whose teams failed to reach the finish line over and over and over again.

Which MVP team got “upset”? If you’re referring to the Raptors, I don’t think that qualifies as an underdog upset. They had a lot more playoff experienced vets on that team and a ton of defensive studs that matched up perfectly against Giannis (Gasol, Siakam, Kawhi, Ibaka)

Also Mirotic absolutely pooped himself in the playoffs, so badly that he went to some league in Spain after that embarrassing performance. Conversely for the Raptors they had FVV have the best series of his life, he shot 82.3% from 3 after shooting 8-41 from 3 PT range in the first 15 playoff games that season

[Black star]

Giannis. Without that ring he would be getting Embiid levels of slander. His Bucks have had some really ugly playoff losses during his era, often times as a higher seed and in series no one expected to be very close. That ring lets him bypass a lot of that criticism.

Jokic is close but he's had only one series, vs the Wolves last year, where you can say it was an upset and unexpected. The underperforming of his Nuggets has been a lot more about the his teammate's injuries. His legacy would lose some shine but considering his super sized box score and impact stats I think he would still be considered highest among the guys who never won a ring. A guy who just never had the right team around him

[Johnny Tomala]

I don't rate either of this rings highly. Giannis won only due to Kyrie and Harden injuries, Jokić path to the title was very easy. I am not sure which ring added more to legacy of either players, I voted Giannis but without conviction.

[Bankai]

Jokic, he was a 2nd Round Pick and not expected to be a MVP Player and Champion. Expectations were lower.

Im not saying Giannis was expected, but when you are 2nd Round Pick, you are fighting to stay in the NBA first.

[CS707]

Jokic because he’s going to be in a different conversation historically and rings tend to matter in those conversations.

[KGtabake]

My 2nd and 3rd favourite players.
On the question.... I don't know.
I think it will be answered if one of the two manage to get another one(difficult if they stay on their teams).
In that case the guy who will have only one, will see his sole ring be more important because it will be the thing that will add to his legacy.

[Wigginstime]

Jokic for the following reasons:

1. Jokic is much more non-traditional. Too many critics were holding on to the ideology of "Jokic's offense is meaningless because you can't win a ring with a center who isn't a rim protector"

2. Jokic will ultimately end up higher ranked than Giannis. Generally the higher in rankings, the more important rings become

[JustBuzzin]

Jokic because he’s going to be in a different conversation historically and rings tend to matter in those conversations.

What conversation is that?

I hope you don't plan on putting him into the GOAT conversation with 1 championship lol

[reload141]

Giannis, because like someone has said previously, without it he’d on Embiid’s level.

[Big J]

Jokic because he probably wouldn't be winning as many MVP's if he hadn't proved it in the playoffs.

[Doctor MJ]

Who's ring was more important to their legacy: Jokic or Giannis

I'm going to say Jokic because he's a far less traditional superstar and many just plain refused to believe you could win a title led by someone with his athletic short-comings.

With that said, because we saw MVP Giannis' teams get upset like we did, we also got to see the knives really come out for Giannis in a way I don't think they ever quite did with Jokic, and oh my, those knives would be utterly impaling Giannis by this point as a guy whose teams failed to reach the finish line over and over and over again.

Which MVP team got “upset”? If you’re referring to the Raptors, I don’t think that qualifies as an underdog upset. They had a lot more playoff experienced vets on that team and a ton of defensive studs that matched up perfectly against Giannis (Gasol, Siakam, Kawhi, Ibaka)

Also Mirotic absolutely pooped himself in the playoffs, so badly that he went to some league in Spain after that embarrassing performance. Conversely for the Raptors they had FVV have the best series of his life, he shot 82.3% from 3 after shooting 8-41 from 3 PT range in the first 15 playoff games that season

First, remember that this is a thread about collective perception, because that's where legacy lives. Everything I said there is intended to be about collective perception rather than my personal assessment of basketball. Obviously I could be too blind with bias to prevent spillover, but I mean it when I say that my intention here is not about what legacy I believe their respective basketball play deserves, but rather what the basketball collective believes, as best I can guess.

It makes sense to argue that none of the playoff series where the Bucks had home court advantage due to superior regular season performance and lost - that is, were upset - was really about what a healthy Giannis could do, never the less these are the stuff narratives are made of, and oh my god, there's a lot of it with Giannis.

Giannis emerges as a consensus in-prime superstar with a bullet in '18-19 earning an MVP leading the best regular season team in the league right from the casual's jump. That's incredible...but it also means that it's extremely high profile when the Bucks lose 4 straight games to get eliminated before they even get to the Finals. ("But they lost to the Champs!" I hear you hollaback, and you're right, but...collective perception.)

At this time, people were already talking about Giannis as someone who just wasn't "inevitable" like Kawhi or the very best. Not saying they were right, but it absolutely existed in the space.

And then '19-20 is literally a repeat of all of that, and it got LOUD. All the way up through the beginning of the Brooklyn series, it was growing and really ready to explode. If Durant's toe wasn't on that line, it would've.

Instead Giannis wins that title and his legacy is forever bolstered - and I'm not trying to say otherwise! - but consider for a second here how Giannis is seen with a 2nd round exit in 2021, another 2nd round exit the next year, and two more upsets (by record) 1st round exits the last two.

We're talking about a 6 year run in which his team has been upset (by record) 4 times, and with no Durant-toe, the other two years would be mere 2nd rounders.

To say that the collective perception of Giannis would be quite different in that counterfactual is an understatement.

[kingr]

Same.

[Dr Aki]

Both were equally important

[GiannisAnte34]

I'm going to say Jokic because he's a far less traditional superstar and many just plain refused to believe you could win a title led by someone with his athletic short-comings.

With that said, because we saw MVP Giannis' teams get upset like we did, we also got to see the knives really come out for Giannis in a way I don't think they ever quite did with Jokic, and oh my, those knives would be utterly impaling Giannis by this point as a guy whose teams failed to reach the finish line over and over and over again.

Which MVP team got “upset”? If you’re referring to the Raptors, I don’t think that qualifies as an underdog upset. They had a lot more playoff experienced vets on that team and a ton of defensive studs that matched up perfectly against Giannis (Gasol, Siakam, Kawhi, Ibaka)

Also Mirotic absolutely pooped himself in the playoffs, so badly that he went to some league in Spain after that embarrassing performance. Conversely for the Raptors they had FVV have the best series of his life, he shot 82.3% from 3 after shooting 8-41 from 3 PT range in the first 15 playoff games that season

First, remember that this is a thread about collective perception, because that's where legacy lives. Everything I said there is intended to be about collective perception rather than my personal assessment of basketball. Obviously I could be too blind with bias to prevent spillover, but I mean it when I say that my intention here is not about what legacy I believe their respective basketball play deserves, but rather what the basketball collective believes, as best I can guess.

It makes sense to argue that none of the playoff series where the Bucks had home court advantage due to superior regular season performance and lost - that is, were upset - was really about what a healthy Giannis could do, never the less these are the stuff narratives are made of, and oh my god, there's a lot of it with Giannis.

Giannis emerges as a consensus in-prime superstar with a bullet in '18-19 earning an MVP leading the best regular season team in the league right from the casual's jump. That's incredible...but it also means that it's extremely high profile when the Bucks lose 4 straight games to get eliminated before they even get to the Finals. ("But they lost to the Champs!" I hear you hollaback, and you're right, but...collective perception.)

At this time, people were already talking about Giannis as someone who just wasn't "inevitable" like Kawhi or the very best. Not saying they were right, but it absolutely existed in the space.

And then '19-20 is literally a repeat of all of that, and it got LOUD. All the way up through the beginning of the Brooklyn series, it was growing and really ready to explode. If Durant's toe wasn't on that line, it would've.

Instead Giannis wins that title and his legacy is forever bolstered - and I'm not trying to say otherwise! - but consider for a second here how Giannis is seen with a 2nd round exit in 2021, another 2nd round exit the next year, and two more upsets (by record) 1st round exits the last two.

We're talking about a 6 year run in which his team has been upset (by record) 4 times, and with no Durant-toe, the other two years would be mere 2nd rounders.

To say that the collective perception of Giannis would be quite different in that counterfactual is an understatement.

The Raptors coasted the regular season and still won a high percentage of the games they load managed Kawhi. Similarly LeBrons Cavs did that for a number of years. If you’re saying the 1st seed is always the favorite then you’re ignoring a lot of precedent especially with Eastern Conference teams in the last decade +

[sp6r=underrated]

Jokic is much more non-traditional. Too many critics were holding on to the ideology of "Jokic's offense is meaningless because you can't win a ring with a center who isn't a rim protector"

This is why I answer Jokic. If you have an untraditional skillset, until your team wins a title the skeptics will say that style can't translate to titles.

It is forgotten but Warriors had skeptics because they were a "jump shooting team and you can't win shooting jumpers." Any contender without a top 5 player gets dismissed by a lot of fans because so few title teams fit that picture, hence the Cleveland skepticism.

If the Nuggets didn't win a title, Jokic skeptics would scream that his lack of athleticism/shot contesting abilities make winning a title with him impossible. Heck even though he has one ring some of em are still out there.

By contract Giannis, a brilliant ATG, doesn't cause as much doubts because no one disputes a hyper athletic defender/scoring wing can center a title team. I suspect the doubts would have been much closer to Lebron-1st CLE tenure, you can't win a title in Milwaukee get out than Giannis' shooting prevents titles.

[Lalouie]

giannis, cuz he ain't gettin' another

joker is a certified all-time genius and that is his legacy, not the ring