Better peak: Kevin Garnett vs Nikola Jokic

[ShotCreator]

Garnett is better. The talent is too high.

Jokic' playmaking(not pure passing, but playmaking angles created), isn't the tier needed to just brute force past Garnett's level overall.

Garnett scales as high as Gobert defensively, and as a high as a Donovan Mitchell offensively. Just pure talent-wise. How he was used(No lob passers played with, no 3pointers taken), is not confusing me as to the actual ceiling of play. And the raw ceiling was enough to be considered better. But when maximized, and next to real talent? There's no team I'd ever feel Jokic could improve more than Garnett.

Yeah little unsure what you mean. Particularly the tiered approach to skill levels. Where Jokic is pretty comfortably the best big man playmaker of all time already, this seems like a pretty good 'tier' to me, acknowledging that is not just what he is.

He's as good of a rebounder (TRB% is higher), and on a different level as a scorer to KG. The defensive gap is clear, there's no argument there.

So I guess my question would be the invert of yours. What is it about Garnett's defensive tier that just 'brute forces' past Jokic overall peak? Personally I dont think a debate around having the more balanced skillset (which he does) ' to Jokic is that determinative or convincing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the main point is based around Garnett's scalability onto other teams. I wouldn't disagree, but I'm not sure that answers the original question.

Spoiler:

I'm comparing Jokic's skill level as a playmaker to that of guard. His impact profile is really that of a guard. It's not like a big man's. I admire his RS defense, which is really good and probably better than most guards in any given year but his defense isn't the same in the playoffs. Even in this past playoff run. Edwards and Booker didn't have these outlandishly good series for no reason. And it's the same trend with an old CP3, Curry, and Lillard, who, is a guy who literally never, ever overperforms in playoffs series. And he had probably the best pure offensive series in a decade against Denver and Jokic a couple yrs ago. But I'm not saying, that makes Jokic a bad playoff defender - let me be clear, it's just a specific weak point that kills his defensive..resilience. He still has his very good hands, kick balls, communication, rotations, box-outs and defensive rebounding, but the fact that Denver has to defend in such a way that guards just get into crazy off-dribble rhthyms against their Jokic-friendly defensive schemes really plummets his PS defensive value down to just decent or okay.

And so if you are a decent or okay defensive guard, I'm gonna need you to be really, really truly special on offense to even come close to a point DPOY who could play like Dirk if you needed him to, or like Anthony Davis with his roll game.

And Jokic is close to me, but this is where the playmaking comes in. He isn't Curry or Magic good on offense. The types of passes his scoring game opens up just isn't sieveish or explosive enough. Honestly, this is gonna sound crazy to some, but the actual style of his scoring game doesn't seem to put more pressure on a defense than just a regular prime Chris Paul season. Purely speaking in terms of the angles he attacks from and what a defense can do to try and slow that down, scheme-wise. Like purely scoring pressure wise, Damian Lillard strains a defense more when he has a live dribble, 30 feet away and there's a screen coming for him. But Jokic's passing is just better than Paul's so it overcomes that gap.

And, he is probably the most portable offensive double-double threat ever ever ever because he has game that has no ball domination to it unlike Chris Paul's. It's a lot of touching the ball, poking it, skipping it quickly, not even always to score.

I really feel Jokic's pure playmaking pressure on defense is in the LeBron or Luka range, not quite Nash or Magic where it's seemingly infinite passing angles being created all the time. And you know what, that's really who I should've mentioned instead of Paul. Nash's hesitations, and direction changes rapid fire all over the court scare a defense into opening passing lanes more, than Jokic's passive touching and dominant post-up actions. But Jokic is more physically dominant than almost all the names I mentioned ITT so his resilience is very good offensively and really scoring wise.

Spoiler:

But that's my feel for it. I think Jokic is a decent true defender, across all scenarios(not just in the RS), And offensive game is just outside true GOAT territory and sits closer to a peak LeBron or Jordan than peak Curry or Magic. And my gut just tells me that's not better true player across all scenarios than whatever peak KG was. Just whatever that explosive unlimited motor all-time defending stretch big who had probably the second best pure passing skill as a big behind Jokic. Jokic is being compared to a guy who has a lot of his offensive intangibles and advantages, but could lead a team to a title on just his defense alone. I really doubt Jokic could top KG's peak potential.

4:00 of this recent video is exactly why I said most of this and especially the bold:

Watch on YouTube

;t=240s&ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball

Jokic's real offensive ability when it comes down to it, down to it being against playoff defenses, is closer to Paul or Luka than Nash or Magic to me. And I'm not taking any of those guys over KG.


He's a floor spacer out past the 3P line but he's not usually a dynamic threat everywhere at all times like Curry or Nash. But again, come playoff time, he has much more counters to his scoring game than them due to his body and physicality. So it's not completely one way or another. But the difference in ceiling is there.

[homecourtloss]

It wouldn’t surprise me if there are people whom see it like that (the argument has been laid out to). From an impact standpoint (looking at standardized approaches), KG has the best season recorded in the eyes of some APM metrics. I’m still concerned as to how he scales up - where his playoff offensive and “on” ratings are more questionable and he doesn’t look quite the same statistical outlier. Big-men (era relative value and goodness sense) whom I see as a goat level peak with case over Jordan:

• Russell 1962
• Kareem 1977
• Hakeem 1994
• Shaq 2000

Not laying out a definitive ranking, but I’m cool with explaining why these seasons are campaigns I regard at the upper-most level of player value. Perhaps this optimally falls under a different thread..

I agree with the playoffs resiliency concerns over garnett as well as some doubts about whether he really would be better today than in his own time as in the modern game the ceiling of a individual defense impact seens just lower than that of a individual player offense compared to earlier eras

That said, what garnett did with the 04 celtics that basically had one fairly good player (cassel) and were a fairly weak team otherwise in both starters and depth is fairly remarkable regular season wise (and still took 2 games of lakers without cassel fwiw)

Is why i can see garnett as a goat ish regular season peak up there with regular season 88-91 jordan, 16 curry, etc and anyone whose name is not 2009 and 2010 lebron (who is basivally a league of his own)

The 04 Timberwolves --with Cassell-- weren't really any worse in the playoffs(probably higher by rolling psrs actually). It's also ignore to ping 2004 KG specifically on playoff resliency based on offense and on-court, and then ignore the 2000 Lakers defensive collapse, on-court collapse, and drop in overall performance:

Spoiler:

Playoff Offensive Rating: +8.68 (14th), Playoff Defensive Rating: +0.79 (97th)
Playoff SRS: +7.79 (96th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: -0.41 (99th)

The lakers fell off as much or more, saw the league-best defense become negative, with Shaq seeing a similar on-court collapse while posting worse on/off than KG.

If the delta in raw team success was not prohibitive for Garnett in the regular-season, then it's wierd for it to suddenly make shaq better in the playoffs.

Of course this isn't the first time even in this thread where offensive performance was cherrypicked to inflate a team performance tied to a much weaker defender...

The early 2000s KG numbers really are fascinating. In many ways, KG might be a more reasonable comparison point for Shaq or even Jordan if we’re painting KG as a system player with logic that could be applied to Jordan in Jackson’s system.

[OhayoKD]

I agree with the playoffs resiliency concerns over garnett as well as some doubts about whether he really would be better today than in his own time as in the modern game the ceiling of a individual defense impact seens just lower than that of a individual player offense compared to earlier eras

That said, what garnett did with the 04 celtics that basically had one fairly good player (cassel) and were a fairly weak team otherwise in both starters and depth is fairly remarkable regular season wise (and still took 2 games of lakers without cassel fwiw)

Is why i can see garnett as a goat ish regular season peak up there with regular season 88-91 jordan, 16 curry, etc and anyone whose name is not 2009 and 2010 lebron (who is basivally a league of his own)

The 04 Timberwolves --with Cassell-- weren't really any worse in the playoffs(probably higher by rolling psrs actually). It's also ignore to ping 2004 KG specifically on playoff resliency based on offense and on-court, and then ignore the 2000 Lakers defensive collapse, on-court collapse, and drop in overall performance:

Spoiler:

Playoff Offensive Rating: +8.68 (14th), Playoff Defensive Rating: +0.79 (97th)
Playoff SRS: +7.79 (96th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: -0.41 (99th)

The lakers fell off as much or more, saw the league-best defense become negative, with Shaq seeing a similar on-court collapse while posting worse on/off than KG.

If the delta in raw team success was not prohibitive for Garnett in the regular-season, then it's wierd for it to suddenly make shaq better in the playoffs.

Of course this isn't the first time even in this thread where offensive performance was cherrypicked to inflate a team performance tied to a much weaker defender...

The early 2000s KG numbers really are fascinating. In many ways, KG might be a more reasonable comparison point for Shaq or even Jordan if we’re painting KG as a system player with logic that could be applied to Jordan in Jackson’s system.

The system player allegations certainly applies more to them than it would to Duncan

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Yeah little unsure what you mean. Particularly the tiered approach to skill levels. Where Jokic is pretty comfortably the best big man playmaker of all time already, this seems like a pretty good 'tier' to me, acknowledging that is not just what he is.

He's as good of a rebounder (TRB% is higher), and on a different level as a scorer to KG. The defensive gap is clear, there's no argument there.

So I guess my question would be the invert of yours. What is it about Garnett's defensive tier that just 'brute forces' past Jokic overall peak? Personally I dont think a debate around having the more balanced skillset (which he does) ' to Jokic is that determinative or convincing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the main point is based around Garnett's scalability onto other teams. I wouldn't disagree, but I'm not sure that answers the original question.

Spoiler:

I'm comparing Jokic's skill level as a playmaker to that of guard. His impact profile is really that of a guard. It's not like a big man's. I admire his RS defense, which is really good and probably better than most guards in any given year but his defense isn't the same in the playoffs. Even in this past playoff run. Edwards and Booker didn't have these outlandishly good series for no reason. And it's the same trend with an old CP3, Curry, and Lillard, who, is a guy who literally never, ever overperforms in playoffs series. And he had probably the best pure offensive series in a decade against Denver and Jokic a couple yrs ago. But I'm not saying, that makes Jokic a bad playoff defender - let me be clear, it's just a specific weak point that kills his defensive..resilience. He still has his very good hands, kick balls, communication, rotations, box-outs and defensive rebounding, but the fact that Denver has to defend in such a way that guards just get into crazy off-dribble rhthyms against their Jokic-friendly defensive schemes really plummets his PS defensive value down to just decent or okay.

And so if you are a decent or okay defensive guard, I'm gonna need you to be really, really truly special on offense to even come close to a point DPOY who could play like Dirk if you needed him to, or like Anthony Davis with his roll game.

And Jokic is close to me, but this is where the playmaking comes in. He isn't Curry or Magic good on offense. The types of passes his scoring game opens up just isn't sieveish or explosive enough. Honestly, this is gonna sound crazy to some, but the actual style of his scoring game doesn't seem to put more pressure on a defense than just a regular prime Chris Paul season. Purely speaking in terms of the angles he attacks from and what a defense can do to try and slow that down, scheme-wise. Like purely scoring pressure wise, Damian Lillard strains a defense more when he has a live dribble, 30 feet away and there's a screen coming for him. But Jokic's passing is just better than Paul's so it overcomes that gap.

And, he is probably the most portable offensive double-double threat ever ever ever because he has game that has no ball domination to it unlike Chris Paul's. It's a lot of touching the ball, poking it, skipping it quickly, not even always to score.

I really feel Jokic's pure playmaking pressure on defense is in the LeBron or Luka range, not quite Nash or Magic where it's seemingly infinite passing angles being created all the time. And you know what, that's really who I should've mentioned instead of Paul. Nash's hesitations, and direction changes rapid fire all over the court scare a defense into opening passing lanes more, than Jokic's passive touching and dominant post-up actions. But Jokic is more physically dominant than almost all the names I mentioned ITT so his resilience is very good offensively and really scoring wise.

Spoiler:

But that's my feel for it. I think Jokic is a decent true defender, across all scenarios(not just in the RS), And offensive game is just outside true GOAT territory and sits closer to a peak LeBron or Jordan than peak Curry or Magic. And my gut just tells me that's not better true player across all scenarios than whatever peak KG was. Just whatever that explosive unlimited motor all-time defending stretch big who had probably the second best pure passing skill as a big behind Jokic. Jokic is being compared to a guy who has a lot of his offensive intangibles and advantages, but could lead a team to a title on just his defense alone. I really doubt Jokic could top KG's peak potential.

4:00 of this recent video is exactly why I said most of this and especially the bold:

Watch on YouTube

;t=240s&ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball

Jokic's real offensive ability when it comes down to it, down to it being against playoff defenses, is closer to Paul or Luka than Nash or Magic to me. And I'm not taking any of those guys over KG.


He's a floor spacer out past the 3P line but he's not usually a dynamic threat everywhere at all times like Curry or Nash. But again, come playoff time, he has much more counters to his scoring game than them due to his body and physicality. So it's not completely one way or another. But the difference in ceiling is there.

You use Ben for this argument who said several times that Jokic himself might be the best offensive player of all time?

[OhayoKD]

Spoiler:

I'm comparing Jokic's skill level as a playmaker to that of guard. His impact profile is really that of a guard. It's not like a big man's. I admire his RS defense, which is really good and probably better than most guards in any given year but his defense isn't the same in the playoffs. Even in this past playoff run. Edwards and Booker didn't have these outlandishly good series for no reason. And it's the same trend with an old CP3, Curry, and Lillard, who, is a guy who literally never, ever overperforms in playoffs series. And he had probably the best pure offensive series in a decade against Denver and Jokic a couple yrs ago. But I'm not saying, that makes Jokic a bad playoff defender - let me be clear, it's just a specific weak point that kills his defensive..resilience. He still has his very good hands, kick balls, communication, rotations, box-outs and defensive rebounding, but the fact that Denver has to defend in such a way that guards just get into crazy off-dribble rhthyms against their Jokic-friendly defensive schemes really plummets his PS defensive value down to just decent or okay.

And so if you are a decent or okay defensive guard, I'm gonna need you to be really, really truly special on offense to even come close to a point DPOY who could play like Dirk if you needed him to, or like Anthony Davis with his roll game.

And Jokic is close to me, but this is where the playmaking comes in. He isn't Curry or Magic good on offense. The types of passes his scoring game opens up just isn't sieveish or explosive enough. Honestly, this is gonna sound crazy to some, but the actual style of his scoring game doesn't seem to put more pressure on a defense than just a regular prime Chris Paul season. Purely speaking in terms of the angles he attacks from and what a defense can do to try and slow that down, scheme-wise. Like purely scoring pressure wise, Damian Lillard strains a defense more when he has a live dribble, 30 feet away and there's a screen coming for him. But Jokic's passing is just better than Paul's so it overcomes that gap.

And, he is probably the most portable offensive double-double threat ever ever ever because he has game that has no ball domination to it unlike Chris Paul's. It's a lot of touching the ball, poking it, skipping it quickly, not even always to score.

I really feel Jokic's pure playmaking pressure on defense is in the LeBron or Luka range, not quite Nash or Magic where it's seemingly infinite passing angles being created all the time. And you know what, that's really who I should've mentioned instead of Paul. Nash's hesitations, and direction changes rapid fire all over the court scare a defense into opening passing lanes more, than Jokic's passive touching and dominant post-up actions. But Jokic is more physically dominant than almost all the names I mentioned ITT so his resilience is very good offensively and really scoring wise.

Spoiler:

But that's my feel for it. I think Jokic is a decent true defender, across all scenarios(not just in the RS), And offensive game is just outside true GOAT territory and sits closer to a peak LeBron or Jordan than peak Curry or Magic. And my gut just tells me that's not better true player across all scenarios than whatever peak KG was. Just whatever that explosive unlimited motor all-time defending stretch big who had probably the second best pure passing skill as a big behind Jokic. Jokic is being compared to a guy who has a lot of his offensive intangibles and advantages, but could lead a team to a title on just his defense alone. I really doubt Jokic could top KG's peak potential.

4:00 of this recent video is exactly why I said most of this and especially the bold:

Watch on YouTube

;t=240s&ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball

Jokic's real offensive ability when it comes down to it, down to it being against playoff defenses, is closer to Paul or Luka than Nash or Magic to me. And I'm not taking any of those guys over KG.


He's a floor spacer out past the 3P line but he's not usually a dynamic threat everywhere at all times like Curry or Nash. But again, come playoff time, he has much more counters to his scoring game than them due to his body and physicality. So it's not completely one way or another. But the difference in ceiling is there.

You use Ben for this argument who said several times that Jokic himself might be the best offensive player of all time?

You do not need to agree with someone's conclusion to use their reasoning.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

4:00 of this recent video is exactly why I said most of this and especially the bold:

Watch on YouTube

;t=240s&ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball

Jokic's real offensive ability when it comes down to it, down to it being against playoff defenses, is closer to Paul or Luka than Nash or Magic to me. And I'm not taking any of those guys over KG.


He's a floor spacer out past the 3P line but he's not usually a dynamic threat everywhere at all times like Curry or Nash. But again, come playoff time, he has much more counters to his scoring game than them due to his body and physicality. So it's not completely one way or another. But the difference in ceiling is there.

You use Ben for this argument who said several times that Jokic himself might be the best offensive player of all time?

You do not need to agree with someone's conclusion to use their reasoning.

this sounds me like cherry picking, to me

[OhayoKD]

You use Ben for this argument who said several times that Jokic himself might be the best offensive player of all time?

You do not need to agree with someone's conclusion to use their reasoning.

this sounds me like cherry picking, to me

It''s cherrypicking if you rely on "guy said x" for your takes. If your takes are based on evidence and logic, then the "who says what" doesn't matter. Poke holes in the logic, argumentation, or the interpretation/presentation of evidence. Don't derail with an appeal to authority

Shotcreator offered a specific time-stamp and followed it with specific rationale. "but ben taylor said" is bad faith

[Ryoga Hibiki]

You do not need to agree with someone's conclusion to use their reasoning.

this sounds me like cherry picking, to me

It''s cherrypicking if you rely on "guy said x" for your takes. If your takes are based on evidence and logic, then the "who says what" doesn't matter. Poke holes in the logic, argumentation, or the interpretation/presentation of evidence. Don't derail with an appeal to authority

Shotcreator offered a specific time-stamp and followed it with specific rationale. "but ben taylor said" is bad faith

look, whatever, the whole point is that nowhere in that video someone is saying that Nash was creating *more* opportunities, while he made it sound like that's what was explained there.
besides that, there's a fundamental difference between Luka and Paul and a guy like Jokic: he's never stopping the ball and defense can never take a second off (as it is with Curry or Nash) or they'll give up a layup or an open three.
even saying "he's just a floor spacer out on the three point line" denotes a total mischaracterization of what he actually does. He's not a Brook Lopez, he can shoot but he can also attack the closeout even against guards and then finish from anywhere or punish the rotation.
One last thing, the passivity he mentions is not correct, is quite the opposite. In a Jokic offense you are actually attacking with the five man either cutting or spotting up, while in a Nash offense you'll more often see two or three guys just spotting up on the weak side.
Jokic's offense is more literally "heliocentric", with him in the middle with 4 guys swarming around him, while with Nash (and other ballhandlers) he is running around with the ball like a madman but there's relative passivity in his teammates.

[OhayoKD]

this sounds me like cherry picking, to me

It''s cherrypicking if you rely on "guy said x" for your takes. If your takes are based on evidence and logic, then the "who says what" doesn't matter. Poke holes in the logic, argumentation, or the interpretation/presentation of evidence. Don't derail with an appeal to authority

Shotcreator offered a specific time-stamp and followed it with specific rationale. "but ben taylor said" is bad faith

look, whatever, the whole point is that nowhere in that video someone is saying that Nash was creating *more* opportunities, while he made it sound like that's what was explained there.

No, he said that a specific time-stamp showed nash doing something he noted earluer:

Nash's hesitations, and direction changes rapid fire all over the court scare a defense into opening passing lanes more, than Jokic's passive touching and dominant post-up actions. But Jokic is more physically dominant than almost all the names I mentioned ITT so his resilience is very good offensively and really scoring wise.

And shotcreator is correct. Those clips show Nash manipulating defenses with the ball in his hands in a way Jokic does not. Because Nash is using the ball, he is already breaking the defense down before he hits the shot or pass. That is an advantage for elite helios, and part of why heliocentric offenses are the best, and helios are the most valuable offensively.

besides that, there's a fundamental difference between Luka and Paul and a guy like Jokic: he's never stopping the ball and defense can never take a second off (as it is with Curry or Nash) or they'll give up a layup or an open three.

Well this is not true. Defenses can't take a second off, when Jokic has the ball. When he doesn't, which he doesn't nearly as much as nash does, he is not being defended or worried about like Nash. One of the clips in ben's video literally has nash taking out several defenders out of a play before he passes or shoots it. That is the main value of Nash's ball-handling.

The actual here is shotcreator throwing in steph alongside nash as if they're remotely comparable playmakers.

One last thing, the passivity he mentions is not correct, is quite the opposite. In a Jokic offense you are actually attacking with the five man either cutting or spotting up, while in a Nash offense you'll more often see two or three guys just spotting up on the weak side.

Yeah but Jokic individually is passive relative to nash who was probably the most aggressive offensive player ever

Jokic's offense is more literally "heliocentric", with him in the middle with 4 guys swarming around him, while with Nash (and other ballhandlers) he is running around with the ball like a madman but there's relative passivity in his teammates.

That's not what heliocentric means? It's not about how active your teammates are, it's about how much of the offense physically and in terms of decision-making goes through you

[ShotCreator]

Garnett is better. The talent is too high.

Jokic' playmaking(not pure passing, but playmaking angles created), isn't the tier needed to just brute force past Garnett's level overall.

Garnett scales as high as Gobert defensively, and as a high as a Donovan Mitchell offensively. Just pure talent-wise. How he was used(No lob passers played with, no 3pointers taken), is not confusing me as to the actual ceiling of play. And the raw ceiling was enough to be considered better. But when maximized, and next to real talent? There's no team I'd ever feel Jokic could improve more than Garnett.

Yeah little unsure what you mean. Particularly the tiered approach to skill levels. Where Jokic is pretty comfortably the best big man playmaker of all time already, this seems like a pretty good 'tier' to me, acknowledging that is not just what he is.

He's as good of a rebounder (TRB% is higher), and on a different level as a scorer to KG. The defensive gap is clear, there's no argument there.

So I guess my question would be the invert of yours. What is it about Garnett's defensive tier that just 'brute forces' past Jokic overall peak? Personally I dont think a debate around having the more balanced skillset (which he does) ' to Jokic is that determinative or convincing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the main point is based around Garnett's scalability onto other teams. I wouldn't disagree, but I'm not sure that answers the original question.

I'm comparing Jokic's skill level as a playmaker to that of guard. His impact profile is really that of a guard. It's not like a big man's. I admire his RS defense, which is really good and probably better than most guards in any given year but his defense isn't the same in the playoffs. Even in this past playoff run. Edwards and Booker didn't have these outlandishly good series for no reason. And it's the same trend with an old CP3, Curry, and Lillard, who, is a guy who literally never, ever overperforms in playoffs series. And he had probably the best pure offensive series in a decade against Denver and Jokic a couple yrs ago. But I'm not saying, that makes Jokic a bad playoff defender - let me be clear, it's just a specific weak point that kills his defensive..resilience. He still has his very good hands, kick balls, communication, rotations, box-outs and defensive rebounding, but the fact that Denver has to defend in such a way that guards just get into crazy off-dribble rhthyms against their Jokic-friendly defensive schemes really plummets his PS defensive value down to just decent or okay.

And so if you are a decent or okay defensive guard, I'm gonna need you to be really, really truly special on offense to even come close to a point DPOY who could play like Dirk if you needed him to, or like Anthony Davis with his roll game.

Spoiler:

And Jokic is close to me, but this is where the playmaking comes in. He isn't Curry or Magic good on offense. The types of passes his scoring game opens up just isn't sieveish or explosive enough. Honestly, this is gonna sound crazy to some, but the actual style of his scoring game doesn't seem to put more pressure on a defense than just a regular prime Chris Paul season. Purely speaking in terms of the angles he attacks from and what a defense can do to try and slow that down, scheme-wise. Like purely scoring pressure wise, Damian Lillard strains a defense more when he has a live dribble, 30 feet away and there's a screen coming for him. But Jokic's passing is just better than Paul's so it overcomes that gap.

And, he is probably the most portable offensive double-double threat ever ever ever because he has game that has no ball domination to it unlike Chris Paul's. It's a lot of touching the ball, poking it, skipping it quickly, not even always to score.

I really feel Jokic's pure playmaking pressure on defense is in the LeBron or Luka range, not quite Nash or Magic where it's seemingly infinite passing angles being created all the time. And you know what, that's really who I should've mentioned instead of Paul. Nash's hesitations, and direction changes rapid fire all over the court scare a defense into opening passing lanes more, than Jokic's passive touching and dominant post-up actions. But Jokic is more physically dominant than almost all the names I mentioned ITT so his resilience is very good offensively and really scoring wise.

But that's my feel for it. I think Jokic is a decent true defender, across all scenarios(not just in the RS), And offensive game is just outside true GOAT territory and sits closer to a peak LeBron or Jordan than peak Curry or Magic. And my gut just tells me that's not better true player across all scenarios than whatever peak KG was. Just whatever that explosive unlimited motor all-time defending stretch big who had probably the second best pure passing skill as a big behind Jokic. Jokic is being compared to a guy who has a lot of his offensive intangibles and advantages, but could lead a team to a title on just his defense alone. I really doubt Jokic could top KG's peak potential.

And here we go again. This time Edwards has a very healthy Gobert behind him and a pretty deep team. I think Jokic’s flaws might help do him in here.


KG in place of Jokic could lose too, any team could lose, but it would have to a look a hell of a lot different. You’re not attacking him with Towns and Edwards as your gameplan.

[LakerLegend]

This poll is disrespectful to Garnett, meaning the gap. It's a lot closer.

Garnett was a beast offensive anchor in 04. His offense would look even better today.

The gap on defense is much wider than the gap on offense.

[dygaction]

This poll is disrespectful to Garnett, meaning the gap. It's a lot closer.

Garnett was a beast offensive anchor in 04. His offense would look even better today.

The gap on defense is much wider than the gap on offense.

If you only looking at regular seasons, it is closer; but KG always gave all out whereas Jokic pace it to develop the team, taking over whenever needed. Jokic's cruise control games over the past four years are comparable to KG's absolute and only peak in 2004. Playoff Jokic is just on another level.

[web123888]

Let’s see… one guy has 3 MVPs to the other guy’s 1, 1 FMVP (and likely more to come in the future) to the other guy’s zero. Jokic is multiple tiers above Garnett.

[TroubleS0me]

KG at his peak in the playoffs is behind Joker.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think it's very hard to draw hard conclusions on KG in his prime. Was he an mvp caliber player for most of his prime? Sure. Is he probably at least a top 20 player of all time? I would say so. When the question is him having rosters somewhere between his Minny days(which again the one strong roster he had there they ended up injured for the playoffs) and his Celtics days where he isn't expected to be the only 20ppg guy on the team and leading that team to a title is where the unknown sort of lies though imo. It's just a gray area to me which is also why I'm not keen on having him in my top 10. It sort of played out in Boston but also with the benefit of two other hof's and a def coach(Thibs) who was sort of ahead of his time in utilizing the talent they had there. It would have been interesting to see him alongside either Ray or Paul during their primes and seen what happened.

[Special_Puppy]

Its still KG. Arguably the best defender of the past 25 years and is also decent on offense as well

[dygaction]

Its still KG. Arguably the best defender of the past 25 years and is also decent on offense as well

To your point, Jokic might be inarguably the best offensive player of all time, and is also decent on defense.

We have seen what a best defender can do to Jokic last night. Defense is as important as offense as for a team. For individuals, an ATG offensive hub's impact on the team is FAR greater than an ATG defensive one in modern nba.

Jokic's past four years playoffs average is 29.8/13.0/8.1 (PER100 - 39.9/17.4/10.8) with .663TS%, 31.6PER, .301WS/48, +13.0BPM. Only Jordan and LeBron have a comparable multi-year stretch.

KG does not have a single playoff run, or even a series, approaching Jokic's average.
His best four year run 01-04 average was 24.4/14.9/5.0 (PER100 - 29.6/18.1/6.1) with .524TS%, 25.0PER, .166WS/48, +7.0BPM.
DRob has a comparable 1991-95 stretch with 24.1/12.2/3.3 (PER100 - 30.6/15.5/4.2) with .547TS%, 22.7PER, .174WS/48, +6.4BPM.

KG and DRob should be a great debate: 1 MVP, great-great defender and regular season player, neither win a championship as a single core, both won after statistical peak in multi-core team. Neither touches Jokic's peak.

[therealbig3]

Jokic has a GOAT-level peak, and I honestly have a hard time picking any peak over him, including LeBron or Jordan. He's a tier above KG.

[migya]

Its still KG. Arguably the best defender of the past 25 years and is also decent on offense as well

To your point, Jokic might be inarguably the best offensive player of all time, and is also decent on defense.

We have seen what a best defender can do to Jokic last night. Defense is as important as offense as for a team. For individuals, an ATG offensive hub's impact on the team is FAR greater than an ATG defensive one in modern nba.

Jokic's past four years playoffs average is 29.8/13.0/8.1 (PER100 - 39.9/17.4/10.8) with .663TS%, 31.6PER, .301WS/48, +13.0BPM. Only Jordan and LeBron have a comparable multi-year stretch.

KG does not have a single playoff run, or even a series, approaching Jokic's average.
His best four year run 01-04 average was 24.4/14.9/5.0 (PER100 - 29.6/18.1/6.1) with .524TS%, 25.0PER, .166WS/48, +7.0BPM.
DRob has a comparable 1991-95 stretch with 24.1/12.2/3.3 (PER100 - 30.6/15.5/4.2) with .547TS%, 22.7PER, .174WS/48, +6.4BPM.

KG and DRob should be a great debate: 1 MVP, great-great defender and regular season player, neither win a championship as a single core, both won after statistical peak in multi-core team. Neither touches Jokic's peak.

If peak is one or three straight seasons, if Garnett is comparable to Jokic then there is no way Robinson isn't. He is a better comparison as his peak was better than Garnett's. His defense was better as well and much, much better than Jokic. Whatever gap some say there is between Jokic and Robinson offensively, it's much bigger defensively, so Robinson is the better player. He had a worse team than Jokic as well. He would have loved to have a Murray type riser and needless to say the spacing around him. He would've scored over thirty a game his peak three years in those conditions.

[One_and_Done]

Jokic has a GOAT-level peak, and I honestly have a hard time picking any peak over him, including LeBron or Jordan. He's a tier above KG.

He's not even close to Lebron, and there are other guys above him too, including probably KG.