Nikola Jokic ATG

[Mossburg]

3 minutes ago, Mox said:

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.

Him being the best player on good teams, which I don't know if actually true, but let's say it is, doesn't really mean the same as saying Curry being the best player on his team. The high seeded Raptors' strength was depth and balance. If there was a best player, it wasn't by much.

Like if you want to make an argument that Lowry was tasked with more, so the comparison is uneven and he should get some bonus points? Ok, maybe. But you are underselling how bad Lowry was in so many playoff games. Regular season Lowry vs Murray, maybe we can call it a wash. Playoffs? Murray has best player on court no matter who is on court potential, and is a certified grapefruit packer. That is a very big deal when each game carries big value. Kyle Lowry? I would call him a worse version of his regular season self.

[Mox]

19 minutes ago, Mossburg said:

Him being the best player on good teams, which I don't know if actually true, but let's say it is, doesn't really mean the same as saying Curry being the best player on his team. The high seeded Raptors' strength was depth and balance. If there was a best player, it wasn't by much.

Like if you want to make an argument that Lowry was tasked with more, so the comparison is uneven and he should get some bonus points? Ok, maybe. But you are underselling how bad Lowry was in so many playoff games. Regular season Lowry vs Murray, maybe we can call it a wash. Playoffs? Murray has best player on court no matter who is on court potential, and is a certified grapefruit packer. That is a very big deal when each game carries big value. Kyle Lowry? I would call him a worse version of his regular season self.

Do you believe that if we took two completely average teams and gave one prime Kyle Lowry, and the other current Jamal Murray, that the latter would be a better team? Because I absolutely do not.

If you don't think Lowry was the best player in Toronto, I'd suggest doing more research. That's like saying Nash might not have been the Suns best player. There is an abundance of clear data illustrating this.

Calling regular season Lowry and Murray a wash is wildly off base, and your playoff underachiever talk is overblown. Took me all of one minute to check the 19 postseason, not knowing the answer ahead of time, and it showed Lowry with superior impact numbers to 23 Murray (albeit they were essentially identical). 

Even ignoring that and accepting that he's had some postseason struggles at times (which is true), don't you think that's because it's a lot harder to carry a team as its best player as opposed to playing next to the best player in the world?

Edited June 15, 2023 by Mox

[Mossburg]

4 minutes ago, Mox said:

Do you believe that if we took two completely average teams and gave one prime Kyle Lowry, and the other current Jamal Murray, that the latter would be a better team? Because I absolutely do not.

If you don't think Lowry was the best player in Toronto, I'd suggest doing more research. That's like saying Nash might not have been the Suns best player. There is an abundance of clear data illustrating this.

Calling regular season Lowry and Murray a wash is wildly off base, and you're playoff underachiever talk is overblown. Took me all of one minute to check the 19 postseason, not knowing the answer ahead of time, and it showed Lowry with superior impact numbers to 23 Murray (albeit they were essentially identical). 

Even ignoring that and accepting that he's had some postseason struggles at times (which is true), don't you think that's because it's a lot harder to carry a team as its best player as opposed to playing next to the best player in the world?

I don't think at any point in his NBA career, Kyle Lowry *carried* anything. Like I said, the Raptors were a balanced team, even if he was the best player, it was like saying Billups was the best Pistons player when they were good. Ok, that may be true, but that gap really isn't Curry to next guy wide, which is what you seem to be trying to suggest.

I don't really care if we add each guy to a dumpster squad and MAYBE they would win 5 more games because Lowry would provide some leadership and PG set plays that maybe Murray can't do because he'd try to score more. Murray is a proven Robin to someone's Batman. Lowry is the dude who does a really good job washing the batmobile, an important job no doubt, but not exactly Robin.

[Mox]

12 minutes ago, Mossburg said:

I don't think at any point in his NBA career, Kyle Lowry *carried* anything. Like I said, the Raptors were a balanced team, even if he was the best player, it was like saying Billups was the best Pistons player when they were good. Ok, that may be true, but that gap really isn't Curry to next guy wide, which is what you seem to be trying to suggest.

I don't really care if we add each guy to a dumpster squad and MAYBE they would win 5 more games because Lowry would provide some leadership and PG set plays that maybe Murray can't do because he'd try to score more. Murray is a proven Robin to someone's Batman. Lowry is the dude who does a really good job washing the batmobile, an important job no doubt, but not exactly Robin.

I'll admit carried was a poor description on my part. That said, we've seen him lead productive teams as a #1. We have not and really don't have any evidence that suggests it for Murray.

I guess we have a different opinion about what more impactful means then. To me, its putting your team in position to win more games. By my definition, we agree.

Okay, except the one example we have of Lowry in that role, they won a title and impact numbers say he was as good as Murray. He's literally 1/1 at doing what you said he can't. He simply didn't do it by dropping 27 ppg.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Mox

[Mossburg]

13 minutes ago, Mox said:

I'll admit carried was a poor description on my part. That said, we've seen him lead productive teams as a #1. We have not and really don't have any evidence that suggests it for Murray.

I guess we have a different opinion about what more impactful means then. To me, its putting your team in position to win more games. By my definition, we agree.

Okay, except the one example we have of Lowry in that role, they won a title and impact numbers say he was as good as Murray. He's literally 1/1 at doing what you said he can't. He simply didn't do it by dropping 27 ppg.

If there was a Robin on that team, it was definitely Siakam. Lowry nowhere near same impact player in that run as Murray this run. Not much room for debate there IMO.

[Mox]

3 minutes ago, Mossburg said:

If there was a Robin on that team, it was definitely Siakam. Lowry nowhere near same impact player in that run as Murray this run. Not much room for debate there IMO.

Yeah, we're not going to agree on this one.

[jrry32]

1 hour ago, Mox said:

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?

I'm talking offensively. I don't think he does have a good argument offensively. And no, Jokic didn't win a title "with a weak cast." You've consistently underrated the team around him. Yes, nobody is disputing that he's amazing offensively. But you can both be amazing offensively and still not be arguably the best offensive player of all time.

Quote

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.

 End of the day, I could throw out stats that support my point. You'd counter with your own. It would be a waste of time. I watched peak LeBron play. I didn't have a chance to watch peak Jordan, but there's plenty of video and plenty of people willing to attest to what he can do. Jokic isn't at that level. 

[Trey Lance]

4 hours 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.

Lolwut

[jrry32]

43 minutes ago, Trey Lance said:

Lolwut

Jamal Murray's production in the playoffs this year:

26.1 PPG

5.7 RPG

7.1 APG

1.5 SPG

47.3% FG%

39.6% 3PT%

92.6% FT%

I'm as baffled as you are. Murray has played like a superstar in his last two playoff runs.

[Trey Lance]

8 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Jamal Murray's production in the playoffs this year:

26.1 PPG

5.7 RPG

7.1 APG

1.5 SPG

47.3% FG%

39.6% 3PT%

92.6% FT%

I'm as baffled as you are. Murray has played like a superstar in his last two playoff runs.

Perceived leadership of Lowry >>> all of that 

[Mox]

2 hours ago, jrry32 said:

I'm talking offensively. I don't think he does have a good argument offensively. And no, Jokic didn't win a title "with a weak cast." You've consistently underrated the team around him. Yes, nobody is disputing that he's amazing offensively. But you can both be amazing offensively and still not be arguably the best offensive player of all time.

 End of the day, I could throw out stats that support my point. You'd counter with your own. It would be a waste of time. I watched peak LeBron play. I didn't have a chance to watch peak Jordan, but there's plenty of video and plenty of people willing to attest to what he can do. Jokic isn't at that level. 

Seminoles said the same thing and yet without bothering to look up a few questionable ones we already had it down to the 7th worst cast of the last 30+ years.

Let's try it this way then: what do you need from Jokic to accept he has a case?

[jrry32]

5 minutes ago, Mox said:

Seminoles said the same thing and yet without bothering to look up a few questionable ones we already had it down to the 7th worst cast of the last 30+ years.

You're talking about teams that won the NBA Finals. Teams with "weak" supporting casts don't win the Finals.

Quote

Let's try it this way then: what do you need from Jokic to accept he has a case?

Carrying over the sort of play from the playoffs into the regular season and a bunch of Finals appearances over the next half decade would potentially persuade me otherwise.

Edited June 16, 2023 by jrry32

[Mox]

51 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Jamal Murray's production in the playoffs this year:

26.1 PPG

5.7 RPG

7.1 APG

1.5 SPG

47.3% FG%

39.6% 3PT%

92.6% FT%

I'm as baffled as you are. Murray has played like a superstar in his last two playoff runs.

Oh ok, now stats are okay. Box stats. Nice.

41 minutes ago, Trey Lance said:

Perceived leadership of Lowry >>> all of that 

Reducing years of impact data down to this as a joke shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how to evaluate basketball. But hey laugh away.

[Mox]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

You're talking about teams that won the NBA Finals. Teams with "weak" supporting casts don't win the Finals.

Carrying over the sort of play from the playoffs into the regular season and a bunch of Finals appearances over the next half decade would potentially persuade me otherwise.

I have literally said "of finals casts". 

So all he needs to do is do it longer?

[jrry32]

1 minute ago, Mox said:

Oh ok, now stats are okay. Box stats. Nice.

We all just watched Murray throughout the playoffs. For whatever reason, you seem to think to make Jokic as incredible as you seem to believe, you have to denigrate Murray. It's weak sauce.