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

[Phoenix]

I think Nash was top 3 for a couple of years.

See above. I guess I need to know what the argument is.

[elementally morale]

See above. I guess I need to know what the argument is.

The argument is basketball is not an individual game. For a few years Nash was better than Garnett, Dirk and aging Shaq even individually. However, top 3 or top 5 doesn't matter that much, I agree Nash was never the best individual player in the NBA.

Back on topic, I think Jokic is better than Nash ever was. If he wins MVP we can say the best player got the award.

[Baller234]

So what?


All that means is they were better than their contemporaries, not the other.

Bird could have 0 MVPs if he played his career next to MJ under similar teammates and Nash could have 3 reasonable MVPs and it still wouldnt make the MVP "wrong".

I didn't say the awards were wrong. I said the awards were meaningless.

Okay great, let's Nash "deserved" the MVP... And? Does him having two of them make him better than other greats who only have one? No, hence it's all but a meaningless criteria for comparing great players against other great players. Like others have said, it's a footnote at best. It means nothing.

[Phoenix]

The argument is basketball is not an individual game. For a few years Nash was better than Garnett, Dirk and aging Shaq even individually. However, top 3 or top 5 doesn't matter that much, I agree Nash was never the best individual player in the NBA.

Telling me that basketball is not an individual game doesn't address why you think Nash was individually better than the players you list. I won't strongly argue with like 2006 Shaq because that was end of his prime and Wade ultimately drove that bus overall( Shaq was the front seat passenger of course), but what's the argument for him over Duncan, Garnett, Kobe and Dirk in 2005 and 2006 as an individual player?

[elementally morale]

Telling me that basketball is not an individual game doesn't address why you think Nash was individually better than the players you list. I won't strongly argue with like 2006 Shaq because that was end of his prime and Wade ultimately drove that bus overall( Shaq was the front seat passenger of course), but what's the argument for him over Duncan, Garnett, Kobe and Dirk in 2005 and 2006 as an individual player?

He wasn't. He had more impact on the outcome than Dirk or Garnett and probably more impact between 2005-2008 than Kobe. It's not something I want to really defend though because it's a judgment call and I'm fine with someone else going the other way. I remember Nash being a top player in the mid 2000s. Never with the peak impact of Shaq or Duncan sure. He probably got lucky with his MVPs but the Suns then new-look offense and success created a cindarella narrative.

As great as Nash was, Jokic is on another level. He is on the Tim Duncan level just with less team success so far. If he were to win two more FMVPs I'd definitely have him top 10.

[Phoenix]

He wasn't. He had more impact on the outcome than Dirk or Garnett and probably more impact between 2005-2008 than Kobe. It's not something I want to really defend though because it's a judgment call and I'm fine with someone else going the other way. I remember Nash being a top player in the mid 2000s. Never with the peak impact of Shaq or Duncan sure. He probably got lucky with his MVPs but the Suns then new-look offense and success created a cindarella narrative.

.

Nash was a top player before the mid 2000's, already making all-star teams and 3rd team all-NBA. I think the reason he's given an asterisk, fairly or otherwise, is his ascent at 32( an unlikely age for a small PG) as an MVP level player had the 1-2 punch of the 2004 perimeter rule changes plus D'Antoni's system. I feel like the circumstances around him made him more effective than actually being a better player than he already was, whether that's a relevant distinction to make for this discussion I'm not sure. At the very least, guys who were MVP level talents prior to those changes and while Nash was peaking should get some benefit of the doubt here. Garnett and Kobe had shitty talent around them in 2005 and 2006. Dirk beat Nash head to head in the 2006 WCFs with teams that I would consider to be fairly equal or comparable especially with Amare out. If anything I might lean with the Suns having Marion, Diaw, Thomas and Barbosa over Howard, Terry and Stackhouse. At worst it's a wash and Dirk was the best player in the series.

I agree with the idea that Jokic is Duncan level as a performer, obviously there is a sizable defensive chasm but Jokic is one of the top offensive players ever so it balances out.

[elementally morale]

I agree with the idea that Jokic is Duncan level as a performer, obviously there is a sizable defensive chasm but Jokic is one of the top offensive players ever so it balances out.

If you watch him play he has a lot more defensive impact now than he had 2-3 years ago. He is no Duncan as an individual defender but his team defense is very good and if you take a look at team stats those are backing up this eye test. He is pictured as a horrible defender that hurts the team on that end but it's not true any more. Actually, he plays the two halves differently. It's important for the team for him to stay on the floor so in the first half of game she doesn't take chances with fouls. After a received basket he is very quick to run the offense. In the second half he defends better. It's not easy to score on him in the 4th quarter. Him being a bad defender is more of a reputation now than reality. He is not Gobert, sure. But good offense beats good defense in today's game and it is apparent on the other end: even the best individual defenders cannot contain Jokic one on one. So his individual defense simply doesn't hurt the team that much. Btw, if mor econtact was allowed, Jokic would be a better defender.

[Phoenix]

If you watch him play he has a lot more defensive impact now than he had 2-3 years ago. He is no Duncan as an individual defender but his team defense is very good and if you take a look at team stats those are backing up this eye test. He is pictured as a horrible defender that hurts the team on that end but it's not true any more. Actually, he plays the two halves differently. It's important for the team for him to stay on the floor so in the first half of game she doesn't take chances with fouls. After a received basket he is very quick to run the offense. In the second half he defends better. It's not easy to score on him in the 4th quarter. Him being a bad defender is more of a reputation now than reality. He is not Gobert, sure. But good offense beats good defense in today's game and it is apparent on the other end: even the best individual defenders cannot contain Jokic one on one. So his individual defense simply doesn't hurt the team that much. Btw, if mor econtact was allowed, Jokic would be a better defender.

Oh I agree, I'm not saying he's a bad defender or a lamppost by any means. I'm just saying when comparing him to Duncan the most obvious point of difference is defense, but Jokic overall offensively is much more dynamic than Timmy ever was so I think it makes it a push overall.

[John8204]

LOL no Moses has 10,000 more rebounds and 17,000 more points...people forget this guy retired 5th in Rebounds and 3rd in points. Jokic is on pace but what happens if he retires sub 20K points? Are you going to rank him ahead of Giannis and Durant? Is he getting close to Curry? Has he even moved past Harden, CPIII, and Kwahi

[elementally morale]

Oh I agree, I'm not saying he's a bad defender or a lamppost by any means. I'm just saying when comparing him to Duncan the most obvious point of difference is defense, but Jokic overall offensively is much more dynamic than Timmy ever was so I think it makes it a push overall.

Jokic plays two totally different halves. In the first he is running and gets most of his assists, not really looking the game individually on either end. In the second half he starts scoring more and plays lot tougher defense. This is the case most nights. And his rebounding is really interesting: when he cares he casually grabs 15-20. Most of the time he is 'just there' if someone else has a chance to get the defensive board Jokic lets them do it. Not in the 4th.

[elementally morale]

LOL no Moses has 10,000 more rebounds and 17,000 more points...people forget this guy retired 5th in Rebounds and 3rd in points. Jokic is on pace but what happens if he retires sub 20K points? Are you going to rank him ahead of Giannis and Durant? Is he getting close to Curry? Has he even moved past Harden, CPIII, and Kwahi

I rank him ahead of Giannis and Durant right now. I'd say in the same range but Jokic seems to be better than both. Not ahead of Curry yet, but definitely ahead of Harden and CP3. Kawhi I cannot rank. All the talent with very limited playing time. As for Moses Malone, I didn't see him play that much. I was paying too much attention to Bird and Magic and I was young. So I have no opinion.

[warriorfan]

Moses can get underrated because his game was ugly. He was a super high motor big man who cleaned up everything around the rim. He was very dominant though and played for along time

[1987_Lakers]

Moses can get underrated because his game was ugly. He was a super high motor big man who cleaned up everything around the rim. He was very dominant though and played for along time

I believe he is fairly ranked. Yes, he was the best player in the league at one point, but what holds him down is that his game was pretty one dimensional compared to the other all-time great centers.

[John8204]

I believe he is fairly ranked. Yes, he was the best player in the league at one point, but what holds him down is that his game was pretty one dimensional compared to the other all-time great centers.

yeah but when that one dimension is scoring 30K points...only two other men (Wilt and KAJ) had done that at that time.

I like Jokic but I'm not ranking him ahead of Giannis and Durant at this point in time. I'm willing to put him ahead of David Robinson this year at best.

[1987_Lakers]

yeah but when that one dimension is scoring 30K points...only two other men (Wilt and KAJ) had done that at that time.

Obviously it's a great milestone, (even though he finished his NBA/ABA career 29k points, not 30) but does that really matter when comparing players? John Havlicek at one point was 3rd in total career points, ahead of guys like Jerry West.