Nikola Jokic ATG

[seminoles1]

3 hours ago, Sllim Pickens said:

Siakam was a 17/7/3/1/1 on 55/37/79 shooting percentages that year.  That is better than any of Gordon's years in his career.  Not to mention the defensive impact difference.  The gap between them is larger than the gap between Murray and Lowry.  Siakam that year is probably closer to Murray this year as far as on court impact and similarly to Siakam, Murray may make an all star team next year with the extra spotlight from the finals. Siakam averaged 20/7/4 in the finals that year while playing elite D. 

Okay, and Gordon this year was 16/7/3/1/1 on 56/35/61 shooting. Except for FT shooting, that's a wash. Gordon also brought similar defensive impact and versatility. They're essentially the same player at this stage of their careers. Obviously Siakam went on to take his game to another level, but his impact on 2019 Toronto was essentially the exact same as Gordon's on 2023 Denver. Siakam scored a little more in the Finals, but Gordon had better efficiency. I'm not sure why this seems to be a controversial take.

3 hours ago, Sllim Pickens said:

Danny Green was the 6th/7th best player on Toronto, and you compared him to Denver's 3rd/4th?  Green and Brown are equivalents in their respective years, but I would take Green over Brown any day. I would take Green over KCP too but its closer.  

They played the exact same role for their teams. Play defense and knock down 3s. That's why I compared them. They are the same player for both teams and do both roles at the same level.

3 hours ago, Sllim Pickens said:

Yes a lot of the guys on Toronto didn't have the numbers that year that they have now, but they had the talent still, just not the role on their team.  I don't see anyone on Denver other than Murray making an AS game ever.  None will be the lead player or even a top 2 player on a playoff team if they leave Denver and none had AS level ability prior to being in Denver (like Gasol). 

So if Christian Braun and Zeke Nnaji take huge step 2 years from now, can I argue them for being great role players for this Denver team even though that had little to no impact?

There was legitimate talk of Gordon making the All-Star game this season. Like, lots of voters arguing for him to make it.

You don't think Jamaal Murray can be a top 2 player on a playoff team outside of Denver? That's absolute nonsense.

3 hours ago, Sllim Pickens said:

There is no doubt that this is the least talent team aside from Jokic to win the finals in a long time and maybe one of the worst ever. I would say the Mavericks were close aside from Dirk they didn't have much.   The 06 Heat are close as Shaq was on the downside of his career and Antoine Walker was as well. 

I already listed the teams I'd argue were just as bad, but I have retracted 2019 Toronto. 1999 and 2003 San Antonio, 2016 Cleveland, 2011 Dallas, 2006 Miami, and 1994 Houston are all in the same tier as Denver.

They are no superteam, that's for sure. I'm not trying to argue that this is some super talented team that was head and shoulders above the rest of the league. But they aren't unprecedented for a lack of talent around the superstar. This had happened multiple times before and will again.

Edited June 15, 2023 by seminoles1

[seminoles1]

3 hours ago, Mox said:

Think you guys are either too high on Murray or too low on Lowry. I'm not a Lowry fan but he's been the best player on multiple very good teams and consistently grades out as one of the most impactful players in the NBA, especially at his peak. His box score numbers aren't indicative of the player he is.

I'm very high on Murray. I would take him this season over any version of Kyle Lowry in a heartbeat.

[Mox]

6 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

I'm very high on Murray. I would take him this season over any version of Kyle Lowry in a heartbeat.

Well at least I see where we differ haha. I'd probably take about seven years of Lowry over Murray this year but to each his own.

[jrry32]

8 hours ago, seminoles1 said:

What exactly is he missing in an argument for greatest offensive player of all-time? He's the best post player and the best passer in the league, a great 3P shooter, can work from any place on the whole court because of his rebounding, outlet passing, and ability to run the break. And he's able to do all this and stick out during the best offensive era in NBA history.

He absolutely has an argument, and I don't see a single flaw on offense to be honest.

What he's missing is not being Michael Jordan or LeBron James. (Putting the way older guys aside due to the eras they played in.) Think about some of the squads LeBron took to the Finals and then honestly tell me that you think Jokic offers as much or more offensively. This reminds me of the Goran Dragic/Damian Lillard debate I had with some poster on here a long time ago. People get so blinded by the numbers sometimes.

7 hours ago, Mox said:

It's not though. You being behind the curve to realize it isn't an argument. There are six guys in my top tier offensively who I think all have cases for best ever and he's absolutely in it.

If you watch Jokic and honestly believe he's as or more impactful than peak LeBron, okay. That's your opinion. I'll think you're dead wrong, but there's not much more to say.

[jrry32]

1 hour ago, seminoles1 said:

I'm very high on Murray. I would take him this season over any version of Kyle Lowry in a heartbeat.

Definitely some Murray slander happening.

[redsoxsuck05]

1 hour ago, Mox said:

Well at least I see where we differ haha. I'd probably take about seven years of Lowry over Murray this year but to each his own.

Lowry wasn't a great fit with Kawhi that year. Murray was a lot better in his postseason run.

[Mox]

5 minutes ago, redsoxsuck05 said:

Lowry wasn't a great fit with Kawhi that year. Murray was a lot better in his postseason run.

He might have had better stats but I disagree he's the better player.

[Mossburg]

1 hour ago, Sllim Pickens said:

That bolded part is very revisionist history IMO.  Nobody expected GS last year to win it all even if some may have picked them.  They just came off worst record in the league and a 9 seed.  And this year nobody picked the Nuggets even after they were the 1 seed in the west.  Everyone thought the Suns with KD and Booker would win or maybe the Warriors could repeat.  

The Heat were the 1 seed last year, in the ECF two years ago and the finals 3 years ago. They had a down regular season but they put it together at the end of the year.  Always had the talent, just didn't play well until the playoffs.  Memphis has been a top 2 seed for a couple years in a row but are struggling in the playoffs and Ja's off court stuff.  But those teams are talented and legit being there.  The Kings this year are the only exception IMO. 

The league is not in a weird spot with weak teams and players, they are in a spot of transition between the older stars (Lebron, KD, Steph) and the younger but seasoned guys (Giannis, Jokic, Tatum) taking over.  Denver had an easy run at the championship based on seeding but not on talent and players they had to beat.  

I mean it doesn't matter who saw what, when you look at the quality of basketball played only one team stood out and all the rest of the top seeds were weak. I never said the players were weak, I said the teams the top players were on were weak. The league is not top heavy like it used to be and harder to predict because of that. But you can still look back and evaluate that the team that won was not really contested, and that either means they were one of the best ever, or the field was weak, or I suppose both. Like if the TWovles when 16-0, nobody would predict that, but that really means one of the 3 things I said.

Also to be clear, not trying to take anything away from the Nuggs. They built "the right way" and patiently put together a team this year that was above and beyond anyone else, what everyone else is doing is not their business.

[redsoxsuck05]

17 minutes ago, Mox said:

He might have had better stats but I disagree he's the better player.

Murray has already had several playoff runs better than Lowry's best.

[Mossburg]

1 hour ago, Mox said:

Well at least I see where we differ haha. I'd probably take about seven years of Lowry over Murray this year but to each his own.

What Lowry even comes close to what Murray did this yea, especially factoring in the playoffs? Lowry earned some respect in the Kawhi year, and he's still basically living off that. Prior to that, he and DeRozan were the face of the Craptor collapse memes, his career was full of doing nothing or worse in critical games. There might be a version or two of Lowry that was a better player than the worst version of Murray when he became a legit starter, but going into the post season, there is no version of Lowry I would take over starter Murray.

[Mox]

26 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

What he's missing is not being Michael Jordan or LeBron James. (Putting the way older guys aside due to the eras they played in.) Think about some of the squads LeBron took to the Finals and then honestly tell me that you think Jokic offers as much or more offensively. This reminds me of the Goran Dragic/Damian Lillard debate I had with some poster on here a long time ago. People get so blinded by the numbers sometimes.

If you watch Jokic and honestly believe he's as or more impactful than peak LeBron, okay. That's your opinion. I'll think you're dead wrong, but there's not much more to say.

How is that example relevant? I'm not saying he's more impactful overall. I'm saying he has an argument offensively, and he does. LeBron obviously does too. Jordan obviously does too. As do others. If I had to have him ranked personally I'd probably say 3rd-4th currently, like as I said before my top 6 are all on the same tier, though I see a clear case for him as well.  Jokic easily won a title with a weak cast and according to you he's completely middling defensively. Wouldn't that mean he's pretty amazing offensively?

You act like this debate solely consists of numbers. I could use numbers, impact, skillset, narrative, etc. to make an argument for Jokic. Take your pick. He does things people have never done before on a regular basis. He's an elite low post scorer, he's an elite midrange scorer, he's an elite shooter for a 5, he's an elite passer, he's an elite decision maker, he's an elite screen setter, he has an elite basketball IQ, etc. Many of these things he does on a level clearly above LeBron and Jordan. The fact that you aren't even making an argument says a lot to me. Which is silly because I'm not even saying he is the best, only that he has a case, and one I could certainly make. 

You can continue to be wrong about him and underestimate the greatness further but that's not my fault. There are only two people in my life that I've gone out and said "Yes, this guy is absolutely ATG. I don't care if he doesn't have a title yet because I absolutely know this guy is too good not to get one. He's too historically great." Those two guys are LeBron James and Nikola Jokic, and both times I've been right. It's not even like I'm a Denver fan or Jokic is my favorite player. It's just another scenario where someone is so freaking good and too many people are late as hell realizing it.

[Mox]

8 minutes ago, redsoxsuck05 said:

Murray has already had several playoff runs better than Lowry's best.

As a scorer, sure.

[Mossburg]

3 minutes ago, Mox said:

As a scorer, sure.

As an impact player.

[Mox]

7 minutes ago, Mossburg said:

What Lowry even comes close to what Murray did this yea, especially factoring in the playoffs? Lowry earned some respect in the Kawhi year, and he's still basically living off that. Prior to that, he and DeRozan were the face of the Craptor collapse memes, his career was full of doing nothing or worse in critical games. There might be a version or two of Lowry that was a better player than the worst version of Murray when he became a legit starter, but going into the post season, there is no version of Lowry I would take over starter Murray.

Then you value scoring too much. Every impact number out there says Kyle Lowry was a top 10-15 player in the NBA during his prime, and the fact that he was consistently the best player on high seeds points to those impact stats being right. He's the perfect example of a guy whose value doesn't show in the box score but his teams always do well because he's always doing the right thing. Jamal Murray on any other team is a Zach Lavine or Brad Beal except with actual playoff resilience. If I needed volume scoring, yeah, I'll take Murray without hesitation. If I want to win games, give me prime Kyle Lowry.

[Mox]

4 minutes ago, Mossburg said:

As an impact player.

Not a chance in hell.