Theres actually no argument against Jokic being as good as any player ever

[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE;14846475]I dont disagree that stats dont tell the story about things and they dont make sense to compare across eras. My point was just that in addition to what the metrics all say regarding Joker, the eye test confirms it. He’s CRAZY good. Since both of these measures, numbers and eye test, verify each other, it’s pretty unlikely either is a fluke.[/QUOTE]

he can't score at will though, which means sometimes he has to defer to murray and play the 2 man game.

not a knock on him, but if we are calling him the greatest EVER... it's something that needs to be said.

[QUOTE=elementally morale;14846477]Not a GOAT list, BUT

Kareem. [/QUOTE]

I agree with your list but Kareem needs to be on it too, because no one else in the history of the game, except Magic, has been able to master the skyhook.

That's really incredible. It's in many ways like MJ, no guard, but Kobe, has been able to replicate the fadeaway. Dirk did it, but he was a 7 footer. D-Wade could sometimes, but not as an unblockable staple.

Kareem and MJ share that, they have the "unstoppable" staple shot. You could argue Shaq "below the basket" or Hakeem "dream shake", but those are not staple shots like the skyhook or the fadeaway.

If going by that criteria, you might want to include someone like Reggie Miller, who could get his shot off against all defense, in all positions, falling in all directions. Curry of course, but Reggie could hit 3s off balance more. The 3 for Reggie was an unstoppable staple shot.

[QUOTE=90sgoat;14846487]I agree with your list but Kareem needs to be on it too, because no one else in the history of the game, except Magic, has been able to master the skyhook.[/QUOTE]

Again, personal preference: Kareem was not entertaining enough for me (since 1980) and I feel Magic was the better player of the two in the 80s. But it surely is debatable. I can understand someone including LeBron or Shaq. I won't... but it is NOT based on 'logic'. It's just a reflection of what I personally value.

[QUOTE=elementally morale;14846490]Again, personal preference: Kareem was not entertaining enough for me (since 1980) and I feel Magic was the better player of the two in the 80s. But it surely is debatable. I can understand someone including LeBron or Shaq. I won't... but it is NOT based on 'logic'. It's just a reflection of what I personally value.[/QUOTE]

2nd fiddles don't belong and that's what Kareem was after his first title

[QUOTE=90sgoat;14846472]He's definitely in that top 10 discussion already.

I'll personally put him at 10 if he wins one more ring, but really, there's only a few players who really stand out in the top 10 like MJ, Kareem, Russell basically. You could add Shaq and Wilt.

From 5-12 it's a very similar group of players with Bird, Magic, Duncan, Kobe, Hakeem and then you have Lebron, Barkley, Malone etc.

I'd put Jokic in the Lebron, Barkley, Malone category now, but with a ring more, he gets in that Bird-Magic group.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14846491]2nd fiddles don't belong and that's what Kareem was after his first title[/QUOTE]
Some really good takes in the thread.

probably the same thing can be said about 20 other players in history if we analyze their peak.

[QUOTE=r0drig0lac;14846496]probably the same thing can be said about 20 other players in history if we analyze their peak.[/QUOTE]

True.

As of now, it's very much a Hakeem situation, where Jokic is clearly in a league of his own and doing great things, but ultimately, we're yet not sure if he can keep up that level enough to win several rings.

[QUOTE=90sgoat;14846500]True.

As of now, it's very much a Hakeem situation, where Jokic is clearly in a league of his own and doing great things, but ultimately, we're yet not sure if he can keep up that level enough to win several rings.[/QUOTE]

Hakeem was in a league of his own because the Goat retired

[QUOTE=90sgoat;14846500]True.

As of now, it's very much a Hakeem situation, where Jokic is clearly in a league of his own and doing great things, but ultimately, we're yet not sure if he can keep up that level enough to win several rings.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure Jokic can keep up his current level for many years. Winning rings is hard and Hakeem started to do that too late in his career. Not because of his level. With the Nuggets I have the feeling it's Jokic and some very good role players. Murray... he is better than a role player but not a star. He is not Booker. I think not even Donovan Mitchell. The Celtics have much better players than the Nuggets. The Suns, too. The Bucks seem to be more stacked. OKC has a very high ceiling. So IF the Nuggets win a few more rings it's overachieving. Based on players alone they are not the favorites. If they pull it off it has to be Jokic puling it off. It rarely is true but in this case it is: the Nuggets really are as good as Jokic makes them.

He's got a case but still he ain't better than MJ. GOAT offense but his defense is average while Jordan also had GOAT offense but was also one of the best perimeter defenders ever.

[QUOTE=elementally morale;14846506]I'm pretty sure Jokic can keep up his current level for many years. Winning rings is hard and Hakeem started to do that too late in his career. Not because of his level. With the Nuggets I have the feeling it's Jokic and some very good role players. Murray... he is better than a role player but not a star. He is not Booker. I think not even Donovan Mitchell. The Celtics have much better players than the Nuggets. The Suns, too. The Bucks seem to be more stacked. OKC has a very high ceiling. So IF the Nuggets win a few more rings it's overachieving. Based on players alone they are not the favorites. If they pull it off it has to be Jokic puling it off. It rarely is true but in this case it is: the Nuggets really are as good as Jokic makes them.[/QUOTE]

He's a lot better than Mitchell. Nuggets wouldn't have won with Mitchell. A no defense gunner

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14846508]He's a lot better than Mitchell. Nuggets wouldn't have won with Mitchell. A no defense gunner[/QUOTE]

Murray doesn't play defense either.

Mitchell's efficiency right now is almost in the 50/40/90 sharpshooter club on 30+ ppg volume. A lot of what you say is just factually incorrect.

[QUOTE=tpols;14846514]Murray doesn't play defense either.

Mitchell's efficiency right now is almost in the 50/40/90 sharpshooter club on 30+ ppg volume. A lot of what you say is just factually incorrect.[/QUOTE]

Murray gives absolutely no effort on defense like Mitchell? Mitchell has the length and the body but refuses to even give an effort at that end. I'm not incorrect about Mitchell. I watched most of his career. Scoring points isn't enough to excite me sorry

There are no words to describe Jokic.

Dude is a turnstile on defense and yet his offense is just so beyond good that he is still the most impactful player in the NBA.

He has already cemented himself has a top 5 offensive player ever at minimum.

[QUOTE=tpols;14846514]Murray doesn't play defense either.

Mitchell's efficiency right now is almost in the 50/40/90 sharpshooter club on 30+ ppg volume. A lot of what you say is just factually incorrect.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but in the playoffs Mitchell gets his, but he doesnt elevate the team.

It’s not that the team losing is in itself a knock on him. But every year I watch him, even before the outcome is I decided I notice a guy who doesnt seem to have great feel for how to USE his scoring to control the game and get his team better chances. Thats why he loses to guys like Brunson and Luka. He’s not great at reading what the team actually needs him to do, he’s just in “look to make a difficult shot” mode. I dont think hes being selfish or lazy etc I think he just doesnt have great instincts for what to do in a given situation besides look to make a tough shot. It’s nice he can do that but it’s not enough and just looking at a statline wont tell you who he is.

Thats really my point about this “GOAT” stuff. Looking at a resumé doesnt tell you who a guy is. I see what Joker is doing and it’s easy enough for me to tell who he is. Same with anyone else in history that Ive watched. So the resumé is immaterial. Im comparing who each guy really is while the game is happening, not what lines on a piece of paper say about him.

I dont get why other people dont do it that way.