Will Jokic surpass Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan?

[DMAVS41]

He genuinely might surpass Duncan.

I see him surpassing him tbh.

Probably staying behind Shaq and Hakeem though.

A lot of people, including me, have Duncan higher than Shaq and Hakeem.

Way too early to talk Jokic over those guys. He would have to lead his team to 3 titles while playing great...and have like another 8 to 10 mvp level or all-nba level seasons to start approaching a guy like Duncan.

Anything is possible, but that is a lot to ask.

[Phoenix]

If he can maintain health he should remain an MVP level talent well into his mid 30's. The things that make him great, IQ, instincts, hand-eye, and touch aren't going to drop off with age and he clearly doesn't rely on overwhelming speed, agility and explosiveness to dominate. He outskills and out-thinks you.

But yeah, the players he's being compared to here accomplished too much and have the entirety of their careers in stone makes it an unfair comparison for all concerned.

[Mask the Embiid]

I got him top 75 ish. Let’s see where his career goes. Those are some big fish to catch. Those are top 12 all-time names. He has a ways to go to get in that discussion

[Overdrive]

Well, splitting hairs to rank guys in a similar tier is a popular fan past time, but in reality its not a thing. There is no objective way to prove whether Duncan is better than Hakeem or vice versa. You can have an opinion but it’s realistically more about circumstance than about some measurable criteria.

Point is, there is no level of big man tier beyond Jokic’s belonging. Hes already as good as the guys you mentioned in my book.

That's why there is a distinction between greatest and best. As I said in the Jokic vs Embiid thread: For me he's the best basketballplayer that entered the NBA since Lebron, who had Duncan before him, then Shaq, MJ/Hakeem, etc. In terms of ability he is already in this tier. In terms of greatness not yet, that's where championships are needed.

[ArbitraryWater]

A lot of people, including me, have Duncan higher than Shaq and Hakeem.

Way too early to talk Jokic over those guys. He would have to lead his team to 3 titles while playing great...and have like another 8 to 10 mvp level or all-nba level seasons to start approaching a guy like Duncan.

Anything is possible, but that is a lot to ask.

Duncan was too casual/basic of a scorer for me after 2004. So he basically had 5 superstar seasons from 2000-2004. After that, he was no longer a takeover player. His loss of atheticism just limited his scoring abilities.

He aged gracefully, accepted his role gracefully, anchored the defense, but he was no onger a takeover payer. He relied on Parker and Ginobilis scoring and penetration and playmaking, which made up most of the offense. The teams as a whole were super well rounded and coached.

[ArbitraryWater]

That's why there is a distinction between greatest and best. As I said in the Jokic vs Embiid thread: For me he's the best basketballplayer that entered the NBA since Lebron, who had Duncan before him, then Shaq, MJ/Hakeem, etc. In terms of ability he is already in this tier. In terms of greatness not yet, that's where championships are needed.

Bingo. Thats why Im sure he should end up infront of Duncan and many others on the all time lists.

Hes just better.

[Overdrive]

I got him top 75 ish. Let’s see where his career goes. Those are some big fish to catch. Those are top 12 all-time names. He has a ways to go to get in that discussion

If he retires today he's at worst top 30. How many two time MVPs are outside the top 20, 30 or 40?

[DMAVS41]

If he can maintain health he should remain an MVP level talent well into his mid 30's. The things that make him great, IQ, instincts, hand-eye, and touch aren't going to drop off with age and he clearly doesn't rely on overwhelming speed, agility and explosiveness to dominate. He outskills and out-thinks you.

But yeah, the players he's being compared to here accomplished too much and have the entirety of their careers in stone makes it an unfair comparison for all concerned.

Yep.

I love Jokic...but Tim Duncan was winning multiple titles with rosters similar to the current Nuggets. Don't get me wrong...I think Jokic definitely can do that, but he has to actually do it...and do it at least multiple times in addition to having great longevity to enter into a discussion like that.

[ArbitraryWater]

Yep.

I love Jokic...but Tim Duncan was winning multiple titles with rosters similar to the current Nuggets. Don't get me wrong...I think Jokic definitely can do that, but he has to actually do it...and do it at least multiple times in addition to having great longevity to enter into a discussion like that.

2005 and 2007 Duncan was not at the level current Jokic is at.

Can we agree on that?

[tontoz]

They are a regular season team with Jokic and always will be. Outside of the bubble he will never go past the 2nd round unless he stacks the deck. That's just the nature of his limited impact.

The Nuggets are no better than the Jazz were a couple years ago. If the Nuggets faced the Clippers, healthy Lakers, healthy Suns, or the Warriors, you know that there's a high probably that they would lose. Mainly because Jokic would be the 2nd or 3rd best player in all of those series.

He's just not good enough yet.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...and-Shaq/page7

[Mask the Embiid]

If he retires today he's at worst top 30. How many two time MVPs are outside the top 20, 30 or 40?

Nash. Pettit.
A lot of mvps aren’t even top 75. Westbrook won mvp and no one here even believes he’s a championship player.

[DMAVS41]

Duncan was too casual/basic of a scorer for me after 2004. So he basically had 5 superstar seasons from 2000-2004. After that, he was no longer a takeover player. His loss of atheticism just limited his scoring abilities.

He aged gracefuy, accepted his roe gracefully, anchored the defense, but he was no onger a takeover payer. He relied on Parker and Ginobilis scoring and penetration and playmaking, which made up most of the offense. The teams as a whole were super well rounded and coached.

You are confusing how he played for the betterment of his team with what he was capable of. Just look at 2006...he was by far the best player on a 63 win team that was hardly historically stacked...was an elite defensive anchor...and then lost in the playoffs to another all-time great in his prime while averaging 32/12/4 (62% TS)....

And your conclusion is that he wasn't a superstar in 2006? That is just nonsense.

I also have to laugh...if Duncan "relied on Parker/Manu"...does Jokic not rely on Murray to score 25 a night? Does he not rely on his teammates to play defense?

This is actually a great comparison right now...Duncan already proved he was winning multiple titles with supporting casts like Jokic has this year. Again, I love Jokic and think he can do it, but it isn't a conversation until he does...and telling me that Duncan wasn't a superstar in 2006 is absurd. He just played the game differently...but his impact was all-time.

[theman93]

No. He has to do have multiple years of post season dominance. We'll see if he starts that this year.

[90sgoat]

He is not close to either of those yet.

He is in the Dirk/KG level now, indeniably a great player, but no impressive playoff runs yet.

I would say if he can get 2-3 rings, then he can challenge Hakeem. Duncan or Shaq are difficult to see how he would get there, unless he can improve defensively.

[tontoz]

For the record Joker's career averages in the playoffs are 27/12/7 with a TS of 62.6%. He has been elite in the playoffs for years some people just haven't noticed.