So...Jokic with 1 title and 3 MVPs probably overtake Moses all time right?

[iamgine]

Cause who in their right mind would pick Moses over Jokic?

[SouBeachTalents]

He probably overtake him.

[Kblaze8855]

If you’re of that opinion it’s unlikely the accolades are why. People were saying he’s the best center ever when Kareem has six MVPs and six championships and was all nba first team at 22 and 39. The accolade argument comes and goes when it’s convenient for the opinion being defended.. And for someone choosing to ignore it? They probably have him over Moses already despite the extreme vast majority of those people having never seen him play a game.

It’s not really a comparison. One side isn’t seriously considered. But Moses is like that against a lot of people. He was generally considered the best player in a league that had bird magic and Kareem but He would lose any poll versus those players.

Jokic could conceivably be that guy for this era in 40 years. If Moses can go have 31 and 15 seasons, and both drag bums to the finals and win the ring once he was given a team that should have been able to almost entirely because his approach wasn’t considered spectacular or sexy? I don’t see why Joker can’t.

I personally find him entertaining but I’ve also heard him likened to a loaf of bread. Filling but boring being the comparison.

You have to have that “it” factor to last in the minds of history. Both had the “it” factor on the floor but in the minds of fans?

I don’t know. He was neck and neck with KD in all star voting. I’m not sure what it’s gonna look like long term following wise.

If you think accolades and ability are always enough you’re gonna be sorely disappointed.

He might need a run of rings to do it. Not that that always does it either. Tim Duncan is already fading into the mists of time and he retired like 45 minutes ago.

[Carbine]

If you’re of that opinion it’s unlikely the accolades are why. People were saying he’s the best center ever when Kareem has six MVPs and six championships and was all nba first team at 22 and 39. The accolade argument comes and goes when it’s convenient for the opinion being defended.. And for someone choosing to ignore it? They probably have him over Moses already despite the extreme vast majority of those people having never seen him play a game.

It’s not really a comparison. One side isn’t seriously considered. But Moses is like that against a lot of people. He was generally considered the best player in a league that had bird magic and Kareem but He would lose any poll versus those players.

Jokic could conceivably be that guy for this era in 40 years. If Moses can go have 31 and 15 seasons, and both drag bums to the finals and win the ring once he was given a team that should have been able to almost entirely because his approach wasn’t considered spectacular or sexy? I don’t see why Joker can’t.

I personally find him entertaining but I’ve also heard him likened to a loaf of bread. Filling but boring being the comparison.

You have to have that “it” factor to last in the minds of history. Both had the “it” factor on the floor but in the minds of fans?

I don’t know. He was neck and neck with KD in all star voting. I’m not sure what it’s gonna look like long term following wise.

If you think accolades and ability are always enough you’re gonna be sorely disappointed.

He might need a run of rings to do it. Not that that always does it either. Tim Duncan is already fading into the mists of time and he retired like 45 minutes ago.

Duncan is still regarded today at a top 5-7 player ever. If anything, Duncan got a post career boost. Which was shocking to me. He was not thought of THAT high while he was near his prime.

[1987_Lakers]

Duncan is still regarded today at a top 5-7 player ever. If anything, Duncan got a post career boost. Which was shocking to me. He was not thought of THAT high while he was near his prime.

As a top 5-7 player ever? Probably not, but most players who are in their prime are rarely already considered top 10 players ever, that discussion starts when they are in their 30's and I always saw Duncan get put on top 7-10 lists while he was in his early 30's. He was regarded as the best "power forward ever" by the time he was like 28. He was always highly thought of.

[Baller234]

Daily reminder that MVP awards mean jack shit in the grand scheme of things, whether the award was deserved or undeserved in any given year.

It's the "best picture" award for sports. It means nothing. It's just opinion and narrative.

[Kblaze8855]

Duncan is still regarded today at a top 5-7 player ever. If anything, Duncan got a post career boost. Which was shocking to me. He was not thought of THAT high while he was near his prime.

perhaps to some people like us. But we don’t really represent widespread opinions.

[SouBeachTalents]

Daily reminder that MVP awards mean jack shit in the grand scheme of things, whether the award was deserved or undeserved in any given year.

It's the "best picture" award for sports. It means nothing. It's just opinion and narrative.

I wouldn't say they mean "jack shit". Sure, no metric is perfect and you're always going to have outliers like Shaq only winning 1 & Nash winning 2, but you look at the multiple MVP winners, they align with the players considered the greatest of all time, which I feel is consistent with all the major sports.

[1987_Lakers]

Daily reminder that MVP awards mean jack shit in the grand scheme of things, whether the award was deserved or undeserved in any given year.

It's the "best picture" award for sports. It means nothing. It's just opinion and narrative.

Dances with Wolves won best picture over Goodfellas, has the NBA ever messed up an MVP award like that? I think not.

[Baller234]

Dances with Wolves won best picture over Goodfellas, has the NBA ever messed up an MVP award like that? I think not.

Two things:

- Goodfellas and DWW are both great movies, so there's no formula that determines which one was "better".

- Russell Westbrook has an MVP award.

[Baller234]

I wouldn't say they mean "jack shit". Sure, no metric is perfect and you're always going to have outliers like Shaq only winning 1 & Nash winning 2, but you look at the multiple MVP winners, they align with the players considered the greatest of all time, which I feel is consistent with all the major sports.

They mean jack shit when comparing all time greats.

If you have an MVP award, it doesn't indicate anything other than the fact that you were "probably" one of the best players in the league that year. It's not a clear cut indication that you were the absolute best.

[1987_Lakers]

Two things:

- Goodfellas and DWW are both great movies, so there's no formula that determines which one was "better".

- Russell Westbrook has an MVP award.

Dances with Wolves a "great movie"????

[SouBeachTalents]

They mean jack shit when comparing all time greats.

If you have an MVP award, it doesn't indicate anything other than the fact that you were "probably" one of the best players in the league that year. It's not a clear cut indication that you were the absolute best.

For that specific season? I'd say that's true, especially over the last decade or so. But you look at the guys who have 3+, with the exception of Moses, those are all considered top 10 players ever, and you move that up to 4+, those guys all get legitimate claims as the GOAT. So while I would agree MVP isn't a perfect metric, in the overall scheme of things, it still shows a pretty accurate representation of the who the greatest players of all time are.

[Baller234]

Dances with Wolves a "great movie"????

Stop.

[Baller234]

For that specific season? I'd say that's true, especially over the last decade or so. But you look at the guys who have 3+, with the exception of Moses, those are all considered top 10 players ever, and you move that up to 4+, those guys all get legitimate claims as the GOAT. So while I would agree MVP isn't a perfect metric, in the overall scheme of things, it still shows a pretty accurate representation of the who the greatest players ever are.

Nash has 2.
Malone has 2.

Plenty of guys who were better only have 1.