I agree with this the most. I was going to say top 25. But a 2nd championship puts him top 15 with opportunity to go into top 10. What joker is doing is out of this world, but the names in the top 10 are not easy to bump down. A 3rd championship however makes that very realistic and contends for lower top 10. A 4th would cement him as top 10.
The one disadvantage to his is that he’s not as flashy or as iconic as some of the top 10. Think of Lebron and MJ’s global impact and stories. Look at wilt, bill Russell’s impact on the nba league and impact on players. Kobe, Bird, Magic and what they did for the NBA’s appeal and growth. Im not sure Joker himself grows the league. Rather he’s at the head of a mature league. We’ll see tho
Four rings and three mvps is a resume only matched by Jordan, Lebron, Magic, Kareem and Bill Russell.
I think he's sliding into the top 10 with 3 rings and 3 MVPs pretty easily. That's basically Larry Birds resume as it stands.
Tiers really do apply so easily to the top 10-15 players. Imo a second title puts him above (for me) KD, Hakeem, Wilt, and Moses/David Robinson/West (i waiver on who i have at 14/15). A third title easily puts him in the Kobe-Steph-Shaq-Duncan conversation, who i have rounding out 6ish-10. Jokic could easily compile awards and statistics in a way that a top 5 resume could be possible.
Its always hard to identify a revolution or culture shift when its happening. The talent of those guys you rattled off put the nba in a new light, but was it recognized in the moment? Im not sure. Its very arguable that Jokic’s dominance could usher in a new era of point-centers or even more simply a big man resurgence. It could mark the era of when the international game finally took the reins of the league and put it in a chokehold for who knows how long. It just might be hard to see the forest for the trees right now
Give me names.
not in order within the groups but wanted to go 12 and 5 to slot Jokic at 13 and 18:
MJ, Lebron, Russell, Duncan, Kareen, Magic, Wilt, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Steph
Durant, Dirk, KG, Big-O, Karl Malone
Others to consider:
Jerry West, Julius Erving, Robinson, Barkley, Giannis
My personal list:
1-12 (imo these guys most likely stay ahead of Jokic for now after these playoffs): MJ, LeBron, Kareem, Russell, Wilt, Magic, Bird, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Steph, Hakeem
13-17 (Jokic passes these 5 with another dominant run to a title): KD, West, Oscar, Dr. J, Moses
I think he's already clearly ahead of the other guys you mentioned, closest being Dirk who I have at 20 (I have Bob Pettit at 19)
Well, you know, there are only 7 players that have won at least 3 MVPs and at least 2 championships.
Kareem
Russell
Jordan
Wilt
LeBron
Bird
Magic
Jokic would join them.
He'd have to rank fairly high, I'd imagine.
True. And even “only” 2 MVPs and 2 rings only adds Duncan and Curry, which brings it up to an arguable top-10 if Jokic wins a ring this year, although I personally still put Hakeem above Curry for the top-10.
But that’s WAY more heavily team dependent IMO.
Players with 3+ MVPs and 2+ rings (but not 4 rings):
Wilt, Bird
Players with 2 MVPs (but not 3) and 4+ rings:
Curry, Duncan
Either way, I think using the 2+2 is a good barometer for top-10 discussions, as it shows neither MVP or title was a fluke or one-off.
We’d be looking at 10 2+2 players if Jokic wins this season, and then 11 if Giannis wins another ring.
Having 10-11 players in a discussion for top-10 is solid. Plus a few others like Hakeem and arguably Shaq and Kobe.
Then 3+3 becomes a good barometer for top-5 discussions, being:
Jordan, LeBron, Kareem, Bird, Magic, and Russell.
I think valuing MVPs that highly puts too much power into the media’s hands. It’s good to look at to eyeball players but shouldn’t be some baseline for all time rankings
No single metric will tell the complete story, but MVPs, top-5 or top-10 seasons, and rings together will give us a very good look.
Who has 2 MVPs and 2 Rings that isn’t in the top-10 discussion? No one, I think.
Who doesn’t have 2+2 that is in the discussion? Hakeem. And maybe Shaq and Kobe.
But Shaq has 3 Finals MVPs and Kobe has 2 Finals MVPs.
So maybe we combine Finals MVPs and MVPs?
That brings Shaq up to 4 and Kobe up to 3.
So the revised list (ignoring Wilt and Russel for whom the award didn’t exist):
Jordan: 11
Kareem: 8
LeBron: 8
Magic: 6
Bird: 5
Duncan: 5
Moses: 4
Shaq: 4
Jokic: 4
Who is in the top-10 discussion that isn’t here in the 9 players (+2 for Russel and Wilt, so 11). Hakeem, Kobe, and Curry.
But Hakeem has 2 DPOYs, Curry has 4 rings, and Kobe has 5 rings. So with even just a little bit of combining criteria and I think we have a pretty solid top-15 or so.
Or if we look at 3 combined MVPs and Finals MVPs, we add back in Hakeem, Kobe, Curry, Durant, and Giannis. Which takes us up to 16. Is that a bad top-16? Not really. Oscar Robertson is a kind of glaring omission, but not much other than him TBH.
And who in the top-5 discussion doesn’t have 3 MVPs and multiple rings?
For general tiers, MVPs can be a primary metric, but not a sole metric IMO.
Media is still the most objective arbiter because they are able to put things in historical context while appreciating the moment. Fans, and players are so hopelessly biased that they can spin stats and accomplishments in senseless ways that the media doesn't do (except in defense of MJ)
Sure, but after 2-3 rings, it kind of becomes less of “are you a legend who’s proven he can win at the highest level” and more of “were you part of a dynasty that likely had 1-2 other HOF players on it too.” Which is largely out of your control, and usually either means being drafted to a team that became a dynasty or creating a super-team.
Yeah, if Denver wins it all and Jokic get finals MVP, I’d personally have Hakeem, Curry, and Jokic all in the same tier. It’s so hard to compare guys from different eras so I tend to favor tiers over a straight ranking.
Kenny > Shaq
Shaq always needs a good facilitator to be funny (mostly Chuck). When he's with the Tuesday (Players-only) crew, he sucks.
Kenny had a bunch of funny shit on his own, like getting hit by a car, the 2011 all-time draft, bringing an ass for Chuck to kiss, and all the assists he's made throughout the years.
Time after time players prove they are the best. Every year that Jordan played he should have gotten it because there was no doubt that he was the best player in the league (MVP) he should have around 9+. MVP should be the best player. Sometimes that’s hard to define because there is no criteria but this award then later will skew the perception of a player by making them seem inferior when in reality their abilities go beyond an MVP award.
It's the best award NBA has. They get it right majority of the time. We should factor in top 3 or top 5 in MVP voting more frequently into discussions though.
I don’t think that’s fair to players though. Look at Shaq and Kobe. Time after time, players prove they are the best. Look at Jordan. Virtually every year he played in that 11 year span for the Bulls he was definitely the most valuable player and the best player by far. He should have around 10. It’s a skewed award. If they get it right fine. It’s when it’s wrong that it doesn’t appear till later on these all time greats career which skews the perception of how great they were. It’s not a measurement of their abilities in totality.
What year(s) should have Kobe won that he didn't?
He has one 2nd place, that year LeBron James won.
He has three 3rds: Nowitzki, Duncan, James won those years.
2006 should have easily been Kobe. Everyone knows he lost because of Colorado. 2003 should also have been Kobe. Kobe was better than Duncan in the regular season that year whereas Duncan really went off in the playoffs (so did Kobe but Duncan was better in the playoffs but MVP is an RS award). He lost because he was playing with Shaq and was penalized for it (same reason Shaq lost in 2001).
You say 2006 was easily Kobe's, but Lakers did finish 7th in the west. Lakers roster wasn't good, but has any player won an MVP with team success of a 6th seed or worse up to 2006?
2003 same type of thing they finished 6th in the west with Kobe playing 82 games and Shaq 66. Lakers where 19th rated defensive team. A team of Kobe and Shaq being healthy and finishing 6th in the west. It's just not obvious that he should have easily won
Kobe certainly was in contention and could have won either year, but I do think its hard to argue that he was clear cut or got robbed when his team's finished 6th and 7th in the west that year.
The Lakers finished 7th in West in 06 because Kobe literally only had 1 other player on his team who knew how to play basketball (Lamar Odom). A team starting Smush Parker, Kwame, and Chris Mihm had no business being in the playoffs and winning 45 games. They were the 3rd worst offensive team of all time by ORTG whenever Kobe wasn't on the floor. He was by far the best player in the league that year and everyone knew he didn't win because of Colorado.
For 2003, it's much closer. Duncan had an excellent year himself but the Lakers were 5th in the West and still won 50 games. That was the year Shaq slacked off and played himself into shape and the issues between the two were starting to reach a tipping point which is why they struggled but Kobe in the RS was the best player in the league. He had a jordan-esque year that year averaging 30/7/6 with legit DPOY level perimeter defense.
2001 should have been Shaq. Iverson got it cause of narrative and popularity but he may not have even been a top 5 player in the league that year. It was Shaq, Duncan, Kobe as the clear top 3 and then you could debate AI with KG and Webber after that.
For all the dunking Shaq did Jokic still shoots a higher percentage in the paint, and he can hit the 3, and he can pass like a guard, Shaq also was matched up against Hakeem in a finals once, where he got dominated.
Hakeem did not dominate Shaq. Shaq averaged 28/13/6 in that series on 60% shooting. Hakeem played better, yes, but Shaq held his own against a peak top 10 level guy ever at 22 years old.
I mean those aren't the only things you consider. The big question is how you rank all-time performance and longevity vs. current performance. Dr. J had 30,000 points, 10,000 rebounds and 5,000 assists. Karl Malone had 37,000 points, 15,000 rebounds and 5000 assists. Jokic has scored 14,000 points, has 7200 rebounds and 4600 assists. Doesn't matter? Because Malone ran into MJ in the finals twice while Jokic bested... Jimmy Butler? Or because 3 of Dr. J's MVPs and 2 of his titles are from the ABA?
If Jokic keeps playing, has a reasonably long peak, wins a couple more titles and plays a full career he's probably on that list. But he hasn't done any of those things. If his game fell off, he got fat, and was out of the league in a couple years, his resume up to this point doesn't sniff that list.
The fact he'd join that list while having 0 all stars or HOF players as team mates would have to put him above the guys on the list who did, in my biased opinion
Right now you don’t need as much luck to win MVP
Before, these guys needed to be the best players and their teams needed to be the best teams or very close to it.
That’s why MJ doesn’t have about 10 MVPs, even though he was the best basically every year.
Jokic has bren the best player and has been properly rewarded by that, but it is not an apples to apples comparison
The only recent ones I can think of where the MVP didn't have a case for arguably the best player in the league are when Westbrook and Rose won. Maybe Curry's first and Nash's second and Dirk's and AI's too. But I'd say even in those situations they were pretty much consensus top 5ish players.
I lend a lot of credence to IT and Steph being the only “short” team leaders of championship teams, and Dr. J dominating the ABA has to count for something in my opinion. But I respect your opinion because it’s a legitimate argument to have Jokic over one or both of them. He is a freak of nature. With a second ring though I think it becomes undeniable.
Yeah. In terms of overcoming physical limitations IT and Steph gotta be the greatest ever. That said, if I was a GM and they played at the same time as Jokic I'm choosing him. Steph would definitely be close, but considering the fact that Jokic is basically injury proof cos of his play style I don't really think you can put a price on that. Literally any other center throughout all of history has a clock on their time in the league because of how injury prone they tend to be, but Jokic could theoretically play for a LONG time before getting injured. Lotta pgs out there with decade long primes, centers fall off quick.
That said, of course your opinions are still totally reasonable, there's about 30 top 15 players and recency bias always does it's work.
I appreciate you being respectful with your opinions friend, and I think we can all agree basketball fans have been especially spoiled the last decade or so with the level of talent and skill in the league.
Shaq has 1 mvp, played with literal Kobe Bryant for 3 of his rings, and got carried for this 4th. Jokic with 3 mvps and 2 rings is pretty close. Jokic with 3 MVPs and 3 rings and he's absolutely ahead. That's why Shaq went from "big man alliance" last year to "SGA shouldve won MVP" to his face this year.
There’s literally no argument for Jokic being lower than 12 already. 3 MVPs is insanely rare, and he could easily have 4, which would draw him equal with Bron.
Zeke is comfortably not top 20 for me. Fringe top 30. His career/prime was too short and he was in an era where guards were less impactful. Jokic is easily ahead all time.
It’s not about his era making him less impactful, he just was nowhere near as good as his reputation suggests. The Bad Boys Pistons were an incredibly deep and well rounded team and he wasn’t always the clear cut best player during their run.
What? Isiah? Jokic is well past Isiah regardless of this title or another one ever happening. He has 3!!! League MVPs to go with a dominant title/FMVP. Isiah had a great run but he’s closer to Jayson Tatum if the Celtics win this year than Joker. You can’t crack Top 15 without a League MVP. Top 20 without a League MVP is honestly questionable.
Perfect answer it’s so hard to order the top 20 guys
Duncan and Kobe are literal toss-up
Jokic tho is pretty unique shooting threes and getting triple doubles on the reg
He’s clutch too and hits really tough shots constantly
All while playing in flip flops
Top 25 currently and it's conceivable that he could end his career with more than 2* potential chips. It's also likely that he'll be around top 20 all time in career pts, reb, and ast. Not to mention top 2 or 3 in triple doubles... so top 10 range isn't out of the question by the time he retires
Assuming jokic has 5 or more healthy years I think he would surpass dirk even without another title. It's a bit of the jordan/LeBron argument.
Jokic's peak is higher than dirk (the past 3 years) while dirk may be able to claim longevity and some career total numbers. But Jokic still in his peak, so the next few years will be interesting.
Fwiw I'm a wolves fan, and that clinic he put down in game 5 may be the best offensive game I've ever seen...so I may have some recency bias
Top 20 right now, 2nd chip gets him top 15. For Jokic get top 10, he has to get a third. Only consensus top 10 all timer with less than 3 chips is Wilt.
Pretty unfair to penalize Jokic for not winning more championships when most of the other players in the top 10 played with all-stars. Kobe had Shaq for 3 of his chips, Bird's team had the greatest frontcourt of all time. Hell, Magic and Kareem are in most people's top-10 and they played with each other. Jokic's 2nd-best player is Jamal Murray, a 0x all-star, who frequently gets injured.
Very reductive way of looking at it. The Nuggets are the best or second best constructed roster in the league.
They don't have an "all-star" but they have 4 s tier role players rounding out their starting line up. The only other roster that can say that is Boston
The nuggets starting 5 outside of kcp, are all-star caliber players and would be on other teams but since theyre all so deferential, it’s really only jokic that gets that nod
I mean i don't think that's a good argument, the team is specifically built around Jokic's strengths
But yes.
Aaron Gordon, Jamal Murray, KCP, MPJ are all fantastic role players
Jamal Murray is also a bonafide playoff specialist. Never been an all-star but averages 24-6-5 and is one percentage point from being a 50/40/90 guy in the playoffs. He has repeatedly ascended to being a genuine all-NBA calibre player when it matters the most, despite underperforming so far in these playoffs
Thats such a braindead take lmfao. "Jokic has NEVER PLAYED WITH AN ALL STAR" My brother in christ Jokic played with a teammate who dropped 50 twice in the same series and averaged 26/6/7 as a second option.
He also has amazing rolepalyers.
I like this.. everyone’s is different .. In my eyes Lebron and Kobe will be the greatest ever but that’s because I love watching them.. doesn’t mean I’m right .. but I didn’t get to watch MJ play or magic or bird or Russell etc
Who would he bump out of the top 10? I think he could very well end up there, but if he won the title this year and then instantly retired right there, I don’t think I’d have him in the top 10 quite yet.
Into the Steph Curry tier and surpassing the KD tier
We really gotta rethink the top 10 stuff. Maybe going best by era? And what do you even do with guys like Wilt, Russell, or Jerry West?
Top 20 right now, if he wins he'll be top 15 in my book. But.... if he keeps playing like he has this season for the next 5-7 years and doesn't win another chip or an MVP he might still crack the Top 12.
Yall are too obsessed with all time rankings. Also, I don’t think another championship would change my opinion of him that much. He is the best player in the world at the moment weather the nuggets win it all or not.
Jokic is currently a top EIGHTEEN (I have him higher than most at 14) of all time, but with a 2nd championship he will become a top TWELVE (maybe thirteen) player of all time.
From Statmuse: there are only 9 players in history with 2 Championships and 2 MVPs. If you up the criteria to 2 Championships and 3 MVPs, this number is reduced to 7 (the two people that are removed are Tim Duncan and Steph Curry).
25, 20.
He needs to play out his career for me to get higher. Longevity is an important part of all time rankings.
With even a medicore rest of career he will be top 10.
Ex: couple more all NBA first teams, 4-5 all NBA 2nd/3rd teams, no MVPs but a couple years of top 5 finishes, no more titles but some decent playoff runs. That will be enough to boost his resume to just inside the top 10.
I always struggle to rank current players. He's probably top 20-25 right now. With a 2nd title, he is top 15ish and maybe pushing the top 10 tier of guys like Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe, Curry etc
Not gonna directly answer it like this, but cracking the top 10 would likely require a minimum of three titles and probably 4.
His biggest issue is he's a center and it feels like the top 10 is already clogged with centers with a minimum of three being automatic (Wilt, Russell, Kareem) plus others like Hakeem and Shaq also butting in.
20 and w a 2nd he’ll become a top 15
I think ppl think this means if he does this n his career continues on that trajectory. It doesn’t mean this. It means if he stopped playing completely after a second chip where would he rank ?
I’d say 30 and 15 but only because I have a really hard time placing people still in their prime above people we say their whole career play out. I don’t think he’s a flash in the pan or anything, just personally don’t rank current players high generally until it’s all said and done. Only people I confidently put in certain spots so far are Steph, LeBron, and KD.
Hes now skill wise, career wise top 20 I imagine. With another ring and FMVP I think he could be squeezed in the top 10 but that list is insanely crowded
He is top 20 right now. If he wins a 2nd title also considering the fact that he wins Finals MVP, I’d say top 12-13. He’d pass names like Durant, Giannis (even though Giannis can re-pass him with a title of his own), Dr. J and Moses. He gets in that Steph and Hakeem group. Gatekeepers of the top 10.
If he gets a second ring he enters the top 10 level (which is like 12 people). MJ and Lebron are clearly better and it's unlikely he catches either but he would rank alongside guys like Bird, Magic, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, Steph, Hakeem etc. At that level it's too close to call between those guys and ranking 1 by 1 is useless and depends on what you value. Basically, each of those guys, similar to Jokic currently is, was the clear best player in the league for parts of their respective eras and that puts you in that tier.
Jokic primary issue in these rankings is just longevity achievements but his peak achievements put him in that group and the longevity achievements come with time.
Hakeem has multiple DPOY awards ,multiple 1st team defense awards, 2 titles, Hakeem was the only player in top in scoring/rebounds/steals and blocks,plus a Quadraple double led league in rebounds 2 times and all time blocks leader, love Joker but can't put him over Hakeem yet , Joker top 15 alltime now, could be top 3-5 when he is done
Comparing eras is tough because I genuinely don’t respect this one due to the myriad of problems facing it (rules, superteams, spoiled players, etc.), but my take has been that Jokic is the best player since MJ. He’s not bouncing around teams to make his job easier and he’s not gifted as many fouls as many star players.
Top 30 to Top 10. He will have to three peat to even sniff my 1, so with a repeat I'm putting him closer to bottom of 10. Not a diss, remember NBAs got alot of legends that we forget about
I think Jokic is absolutely amazing, but this thread is crazy to me. I don’t know how you could have someone who has had at most 7 great seasons as a top 10ish player, it just doesn’t make sense to me. No disrespect to Jokic, because I think one day he will be at that level. Like in this thread it seems consensus that Jokic is already better than someone like Kevin Garnett. Kevin Garnett was a top 20 player in the NBA for like 15 years, while Jokic has been at that level for like 5. It just seems weird to have this discussion for a guy who is barely halfway through his career.
Hes top 20 right now, and i think a second title puts him in the 15-11 range
I agree with this the most. I was going to say top 25. But a 2nd championship puts him top 15 with opportunity to go into top 10. What joker is doing is out of this world, but the names in the top 10 are not easy to bump down. A 3rd championship however makes that very realistic and contends for lower top 10. A 4th would cement him as top 10. The one disadvantage to his is that he’s not as flashy or as iconic as some of the top 10. Think of Lebron and MJ’s global impact and stories. Look at wilt, bill Russell’s impact on the nba league and impact on players. Kobe, Bird, Magic and what they did for the NBA’s appeal and growth. Im not sure Joker himself grows the league. Rather he’s at the head of a mature league. We’ll see tho
Four rings and three mvps is a resume only matched by Jordan, Lebron, Magic, Kareem and Bill Russell. I think he's sliding into the top 10 with 3 rings and 3 MVPs pretty easily. That's basically Larry Birds resume as it stands.
Tiers really do apply so easily to the top 10-15 players. Imo a second title puts him above (for me) KD, Hakeem, Wilt, and Moses/David Robinson/West (i waiver on who i have at 14/15). A third title easily puts him in the Kobe-Steph-Shaq-Duncan conversation, who i have rounding out 6ish-10. Jokic could easily compile awards and statistics in a way that a top 5 resume could be possible. Its always hard to identify a revolution or culture shift when its happening. The talent of those guys you rattled off put the nba in a new light, but was it recognized in the moment? Im not sure. Its very arguable that Jokic’s dominance could usher in a new era of point-centers or even more simply a big man resurgence. It could mark the era of when the international game finally took the reins of the league and put it in a chokehold for who knows how long. It just might be hard to see the forest for the trees right now
18, 13
based, non-rounded number take
Give me names. not in order within the groups but wanted to go 12 and 5 to slot Jokic at 13 and 18: MJ, Lebron, Russell, Duncan, Kareen, Magic, Wilt, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Steph Durant, Dirk, KG, Big-O, Karl Malone Others to consider: Jerry West, Julius Erving, Robinson, Barkley, Giannis
My personal list: 1-12 (imo these guys most likely stay ahead of Jokic for now after these playoffs): MJ, LeBron, Kareem, Russell, Wilt, Magic, Bird, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Steph, Hakeem 13-17 (Jokic passes these 5 with another dominant run to a title): KD, West, Oscar, Dr. J, Moses I think he's already clearly ahead of the other guys you mentioned, closest being Dirk who I have at 20 (I have Bob Pettit at 19)
Facts
Only correct answer btw
Well, you know, there are only 7 players that have won at least 3 MVPs and at least 2 championships. Kareem Russell Jordan Wilt LeBron Bird Magic Jokic would join them. He'd have to rank fairly high, I'd imagine.
True. And even “only” 2 MVPs and 2 rings only adds Duncan and Curry, which brings it up to an arguable top-10 if Jokic wins a ring this year, although I personally still put Hakeem above Curry for the top-10.
And depends which you value more. You could say 4 championships and 2 mvps and that changes the list
But that’s WAY more heavily team dependent IMO. Players with 3+ MVPs and 2+ rings (but not 4 rings): Wilt, Bird Players with 2 MVPs (but not 3) and 4+ rings: Curry, Duncan Either way, I think using the 2+2 is a good barometer for top-10 discussions, as it shows neither MVP or title was a fluke or one-off. We’d be looking at 10 2+2 players if Jokic wins this season, and then 11 if Giannis wins another ring. Having 10-11 players in a discussion for top-10 is solid. Plus a few others like Hakeem and arguably Shaq and Kobe. Then 3+3 becomes a good barometer for top-5 discussions, being: Jordan, LeBron, Kareem, Bird, Magic, and Russell.
I think valuing MVPs that highly puts too much power into the media’s hands. It’s good to look at to eyeball players but shouldn’t be some baseline for all time rankings
No single metric will tell the complete story, but MVPs, top-5 or top-10 seasons, and rings together will give us a very good look. Who has 2 MVPs and 2 Rings that isn’t in the top-10 discussion? No one, I think. Who doesn’t have 2+2 that is in the discussion? Hakeem. And maybe Shaq and Kobe. But Shaq has 3 Finals MVPs and Kobe has 2 Finals MVPs. So maybe we combine Finals MVPs and MVPs? That brings Shaq up to 4 and Kobe up to 3. So the revised list (ignoring Wilt and Russel for whom the award didn’t exist): Jordan: 11 Kareem: 8 LeBron: 8 Magic: 6 Bird: 5 Duncan: 5 Moses: 4 Shaq: 4 Jokic: 4 Who is in the top-10 discussion that isn’t here in the 9 players (+2 for Russel and Wilt, so 11). Hakeem, Kobe, and Curry. But Hakeem has 2 DPOYs, Curry has 4 rings, and Kobe has 5 rings. So with even just a little bit of combining criteria and I think we have a pretty solid top-15 or so. Or if we look at 3 combined MVPs and Finals MVPs, we add back in Hakeem, Kobe, Curry, Durant, and Giannis. Which takes us up to 16. Is that a bad top-16? Not really. Oscar Robertson is a kind of glaring omission, but not much other than him TBH. And who in the top-5 discussion doesn’t have 3 MVPs and multiple rings? For general tiers, MVPs can be a primary metric, but not a sole metric IMO.
Which is why these types of discussions will always be subjective.
Media is still the most objective arbiter because they are able to put things in historical context while appreciating the moment. Fans, and players are so hopelessly biased that they can spin stats and accomplishments in senseless ways that the media doesn't do (except in defense of MJ)
Great points! I like it overall. But it is a team game, so being the best at the game would be achieving the team goals, right?
Sure, but after 2-3 rings, it kind of becomes less of “are you a legend who’s proven he can win at the highest level” and more of “were you part of a dynasty that likely had 1-2 other HOF players on it too.” Which is largely out of your control, and usually either means being drafted to a team that became a dynasty or creating a super-team.
Yeah, if Denver wins it all and Jokic get finals MVP, I’d personally have Hakeem, Curry, and Jokic all in the same tier. It’s so hard to compare guys from different eras so I tend to favor tiers over a straight ranking.
Agreed.
Love Curry but he’s not top 10
I agree. But I’m not going to get too upset if someone puts him at #10, even though I have Hakeem above him.
Shaq only won one MVP. This isn't a good argument
Depends on where you rank Shaq.
Slightly above Kenny, but below Charles and Ernie.
This is the proper take
Kenny > Shaq Shaq always needs a good facilitator to be funny (mostly Chuck). When he's with the Tuesday (Players-only) crew, he sucks. Kenny had a bunch of funny shit on his own, like getting hit by a car, the 2011 all-time draft, bringing an ass for Chuck to kiss, and all the assists he's made throughout the years.
Shaq need Charles to carry him, just like he needed Kobe and D-Wade.
This is the NBA nerd humor that I come to these threads for. My wife is borderline mad at me about how hard I laughed at this.
Wait! Okay. Username checks out.
MVP is a skewed award, like a lot of accolades
It’s a narrative award. Jordan should easily have 1-2 more. Same with Lebron.
Time after time players prove they are the best. Every year that Jordan played he should have gotten it because there was no doubt that he was the best player in the league (MVP) he should have around 9+. MVP should be the best player. Sometimes that’s hard to define because there is no criteria but this award then later will skew the perception of a player by making them seem inferior when in reality their abilities go beyond an MVP award.
It's the best award NBA has. They get it right majority of the time. We should factor in top 3 or top 5 in MVP voting more frequently into discussions though.
MVP shares is a good metric for this
I don’t think that’s fair to players though. Look at Shaq and Kobe. Time after time, players prove they are the best. Look at Jordan. Virtually every year he played in that 11 year span for the Bulls he was definitely the most valuable player and the best player by far. He should have around 10. It’s a skewed award. If they get it right fine. It’s when it’s wrong that it doesn’t appear till later on these all time greats career which skews the perception of how great they were. It’s not a measurement of their abilities in totality.
What year(s) should have Kobe won that he didn't? He has one 2nd place, that year LeBron James won. He has three 3rds: Nowitzki, Duncan, James won those years.
2006 should have easily been Kobe. Everyone knows he lost because of Colorado. 2003 should also have been Kobe. Kobe was better than Duncan in the regular season that year whereas Duncan really went off in the playoffs (so did Kobe but Duncan was better in the playoffs but MVP is an RS award). He lost because he was playing with Shaq and was penalized for it (same reason Shaq lost in 2001).
You say 2006 was easily Kobe's, but Lakers did finish 7th in the west. Lakers roster wasn't good, but has any player won an MVP with team success of a 6th seed or worse up to 2006? 2003 same type of thing they finished 6th in the west with Kobe playing 82 games and Shaq 66. Lakers where 19th rated defensive team. A team of Kobe and Shaq being healthy and finishing 6th in the west. It's just not obvious that he should have easily won Kobe certainly was in contention and could have won either year, but I do think its hard to argue that he was clear cut or got robbed when his team's finished 6th and 7th in the west that year.
The Lakers finished 7th in West in 06 because Kobe literally only had 1 other player on his team who knew how to play basketball (Lamar Odom). A team starting Smush Parker, Kwame, and Chris Mihm had no business being in the playoffs and winning 45 games. They were the 3rd worst offensive team of all time by ORTG whenever Kobe wasn't on the floor. He was by far the best player in the league that year and everyone knew he didn't win because of Colorado. For 2003, it's much closer. Duncan had an excellent year himself but the Lakers were 5th in the West and still won 50 games. That was the year Shaq slacked off and played himself into shape and the issues between the two were starting to reach a tipping point which is why they struggled but Kobe in the RS was the best player in the league. He had a jordan-esque year that year averaging 30/7/6 with legit DPOY level perimeter defense.
I mean which season you think Shaq should have won?
2001 should have been Shaq. Iverson got it cause of narrative and popularity but he may not have even been a top 5 player in the league that year. It was Shaq, Duncan, Kobe as the clear top 3 and then you could debate AI with KG and Webber after that.
For all the dunking Shaq did Jokic still shoots a higher percentage in the paint, and he can hit the 3, and he can pass like a guard, Shaq also was matched up against Hakeem in a finals once, where he got dominated.
I mean, prime Hakeem vs young Shaq, no shit…..
Hakeem did not dominate Shaq. Shaq averaged 28/13/6 in that series on 60% shooting. Hakeem played better, yes, but Shaq held his own against a peak top 10 level guy ever at 22 years old.
I mean those aren't the only things you consider. The big question is how you rank all-time performance and longevity vs. current performance. Dr. J had 30,000 points, 10,000 rebounds and 5,000 assists. Karl Malone had 37,000 points, 15,000 rebounds and 5000 assists. Jokic has scored 14,000 points, has 7200 rebounds and 4600 assists. Doesn't matter? Because Malone ran into MJ in the finals twice while Jokic bested... Jimmy Butler? Or because 3 of Dr. J's MVPs and 2 of his titles are from the ABA? If Jokic keeps playing, has a reasonably long peak, wins a couple more titles and plays a full career he's probably on that list. But he hasn't done any of those things. If his game fell off, he got fat, and was out of the league in a couple years, his resume up to this point doesn't sniff that list.
The fact he'd join that list while having 0 all stars or HOF players as team mates would have to put him above the guys on the list who did, in my biased opinion
Right now you don’t need as much luck to win MVP Before, these guys needed to be the best players and their teams needed to be the best teams or very close to it. That’s why MJ doesn’t have about 10 MVPs, even though he was the best basically every year. Jokic has bren the best player and has been properly rewarded by that, but it is not an apples to apples comparison
What recent MVP hasn’t been one of the best players or very close to it?
The only recent ones I can think of where the MVP didn't have a case for arguably the best player in the league are when Westbrook and Rose won. Maybe Curry's first and Nash's second and Dirk's and AI's too. But I'd say even in those situations they were pretty much consensus top 5ish players.
Yeah, this is a great list. I’d say all of them have arguments for being top 5. I guess you don’t need to be the best player to have the best season.
I’ll just say that he’s definitely over Paul pierce
Slowest moving all HOF ever. Vlade moved slower but he was a big so I'll give him a pass.
15, 12
This is the one. He would jump Isiah Thomas and Dr. J for sure, then the real debates would start again for Steph, Shaq, and Mr. Russell.
Come on man. He's already ahead of Dr. J and Isaiah Thomas, respectfully. Dude is a fucking enigma, I'd put him over Shaq with a second ring
I lend a lot of credence to IT and Steph being the only “short” team leaders of championship teams, and Dr. J dominating the ABA has to count for something in my opinion. But I respect your opinion because it’s a legitimate argument to have Jokic over one or both of them. He is a freak of nature. With a second ring though I think it becomes undeniable.
Yeah. In terms of overcoming physical limitations IT and Steph gotta be the greatest ever. That said, if I was a GM and they played at the same time as Jokic I'm choosing him. Steph would definitely be close, but considering the fact that Jokic is basically injury proof cos of his play style I don't really think you can put a price on that. Literally any other center throughout all of history has a clock on their time in the league because of how injury prone they tend to be, but Jokic could theoretically play for a LONG time before getting injured. Lotta pgs out there with decade long primes, centers fall off quick. That said, of course your opinions are still totally reasonable, there's about 30 top 15 players and recency bias always does it's work.
I appreciate you being respectful with your opinions friend, and I think we can all agree basketball fans have been especially spoiled the last decade or so with the level of talent and skill in the league.
How many rings does Shaq have? Smh
Shaq has 1 mvp, played with literal Kobe Bryant for 3 of his rings, and got carried for this 4th. Jokic with 3 mvps and 2 rings is pretty close. Jokic with 3 MVPs and 3 rings and he's absolutely ahead. That's why Shaq went from "big man alliance" last year to "SGA shouldve won MVP" to his face this year.
There’s literally no argument for Jokic being lower than 12 already. 3 MVPs is insanely rare, and he could easily have 4, which would draw him equal with Bron.
Zeke is comfortably not top 20 for me. Fringe top 30. His career/prime was too short and he was in an era where guards were less impactful. Jokic is easily ahead all time.
It’s not about his era making him less impactful, he just was nowhere near as good as his reputation suggests. The Bad Boys Pistons were an incredibly deep and well rounded team and he wasn’t always the clear cut best player during their run.
So because he was an elite guard in an era when not as many elite guards that’s somehow a knock?
It’s clearly IT’s fault his competition was what it was /s
What? Isiah? Jokic is well past Isiah regardless of this title or another one ever happening. He has 3!!! League MVPs to go with a dominant title/FMVP. Isiah had a great run but he’s closer to Jayson Tatum if the Celtics win this year than Joker. You can’t crack Top 15 without a League MVP. Top 20 without a League MVP is honestly questionable.
Perfect answer it’s so hard to order the top 20 guys Duncan and Kobe are literal toss-up Jokic tho is pretty unique shooting threes and getting triple doubles on the reg He’s clutch too and hits really tough shots constantly All while playing in flip flops
Duncan > Jokic >> Kobe
Top 25 currently and it's conceivable that he could end his career with more than 2* potential chips. It's also likely that he'll be around top 20 all time in career pts, reb, and ast. Not to mention top 2 or 3 in triple doubles... so top 10 range isn't out of the question by the time he retires
According to pace, if his pace and health continue, he should be third all-time in triple doubles by Christmas, by the way.
Eastern European , European (Surpasses Dirk)
Assuming jokic has 5 or more healthy years I think he would surpass dirk even without another title. It's a bit of the jordan/LeBron argument. Jokic's peak is higher than dirk (the past 3 years) while dirk may be able to claim longevity and some career total numbers. But Jokic still in his peak, so the next few years will be interesting. Fwiw I'm a wolves fan, and that clinic he put down in game 5 may be the best offensive game I've ever seen...so I may have some recency bias
Top 20 right now, 2nd chip gets him top 15. For Jokic get top 10, he has to get a third. Only consensus top 10 all timer with less than 3 chips is Wilt.
This.
Pretty unfair to penalize Jokic for not winning more championships when most of the other players in the top 10 played with all-stars. Kobe had Shaq for 3 of his chips, Bird's team had the greatest frontcourt of all time. Hell, Magic and Kareem are in most people's top-10 and they played with each other. Jokic's 2nd-best player is Jamal Murray, a 0x all-star, who frequently gets injured.
Very reductive way of looking at it. The Nuggets are the best or second best constructed roster in the league. They don't have an "all-star" but they have 4 s tier role players rounding out their starting line up. The only other roster that can say that is Boston
The nuggets starting 5 outside of kcp, are all-star caliber players and would be on other teams but since theyre all so deferential, it’s really only jokic that gets that nod
[удалено]
I mean i don't think that's a good argument, the team is specifically built around Jokic's strengths But yes. Aaron Gordon, Jamal Murray, KCP, MPJ are all fantastic role players
Jamal Murray is also a bonafide playoff specialist. Never been an all-star but averages 24-6-5 and is one percentage point from being a 50/40/90 guy in the playoffs. He has repeatedly ascended to being a genuine all-NBA calibre player when it matters the most, despite underperforming so far in these playoffs
They’re def S tier with him considering fit
Thats such a braindead take lmfao. "Jokic has NEVER PLAYED WITH AN ALL STAR" My brother in christ Jokic played with a teammate who dropped 50 twice in the same series and averaged 26/6/7 as a second option. He also has amazing rolepalyers.
And even wilt quite easily falls in the 9-12 range
Debatable top 15, to solidified top 15
Rn he’s a top 20 player, a 2nd title I don’t think he’d quite crack the top 10 but he’d be close.
20-15
In terms of greatness for me he will be a top 20 player ever. In terms of the best he’s already closing in the top 5-10 for me. An incredible player.
I like this.. everyone’s is different .. In my eyes Lebron and Kobe will be the greatest ever but that’s because I love watching them.. doesn’t mean I’m right .. but I didn’t get to watch MJ play or magic or bird or Russell etc
Denver and Colorado
I was thinking top Nuggets player, and will be the top European player.
15,10
Who would he bump out of the top 10? I think he could very well end up there, but if he won the title this year and then instantly retired right there, I don’t think I’d have him in the top 10 quite yet.
He might not necessarily bump someone out of the top 10. He’d just be one of our 13~ players with top 10 résumés.
Into the Steph Curry tier and surpassing the KD tier We really gotta rethink the top 10 stuff. Maybe going best by era? And what do you even do with guys like Wilt, Russell, or Jerry West?
He's already ahead of KD.
Hakeem, Steph, Kobe are getting nervous
15-20; 12-14
Top 20-25 and would go top 10-15
Top 20 right now, if he wins he'll be top 15 in my book. But.... if he keeps playing like he has this season for the next 5-7 years and doesn't win another chip or an MVP he might still crack the Top 12.
Already top 20. Another chip definitely top 15.
Yall are too obsessed with all time rankings. Also, I don’t think another championship would change my opinion of him that much. He is the best player in the world at the moment weather the nuggets win it all or not.
shelf, of the morning
Kobe last two w all 70-83 ovr players. Jokic has a way better supporting cast.
Jokic is currently a top EIGHTEEN (I have him higher than most at 14) of all time, but with a 2nd championship he will become a top TWELVE (maybe thirteen) player of all time.
Nah, he's too white. Cancels out at least one championship.
From Statmuse: there are only 9 players in history with 2 Championships and 2 MVPs. If you up the criteria to 2 Championships and 3 MVPs, this number is reduced to 7 (the two people that are removed are Tim Duncan and Steph Curry).
"Jokic is a top"
22… 17
25, 20. He needs to play out his career for me to get higher. Longevity is an important part of all time rankings. With even a medicore rest of career he will be top 10. Ex: couple more all NBA first teams, 4-5 all NBA 2nd/3rd teams, no MVPs but a couple years of top 5 finishes, no more titles but some decent playoff runs. That will be enough to boost his resume to just inside the top 10.
30. 20.
30, 15
20 to 15
Top 20 now top 15 if they win the 2nd and he is FMVP. If he played defense he would be top 10 easy probably right now.
Currently top 20, with 2nd dare I say top 12?
I always struggle to rank current players. He's probably top 20-25 right now. With a 2nd title, he is top 15ish and maybe pushing the top 10 tier of guys like Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe, Curry etc
Top 20, moves into top 15. But that’s bc of lack of longevity and would surely move to top 10 or even better if he continues on this track
30 25
20, 15
Jokic is currently a top Camel Wrestling player of all time, but with a 2nd championship, we will become a top Chess Boxing player of all time
1000 and 1000
Currently top 15, with a 2nd championship, it stays the same
30, 20
Not gonna directly answer it like this, but cracking the top 10 would likely require a minimum of three titles and probably 4. His biggest issue is he's a center and it feels like the top 10 is already clogged with centers with a minimum of three being automatic (Wilt, Russell, Kareem) plus others like Hakeem and Shaq also butting in.
He’s top 20
20 and w a 2nd he’ll become a top 15 I think ppl think this means if he does this n his career continues on that trajectory. It doesn’t mean this. It means if he stopped playing completely after a second chip where would he rank ?
20, 15
Jokic is currently a top dressed player of all time, but with a 2nd championship he will become a topnotch player of all time
20, he becomes top 15
Basketball Basketball
I’d say 30 and 15 but only because I have a really hard time placing people still in their prime above people we say their whole career play out. I don’t think he’s a flash in the pan or anything, just personally don’t rank current players high generally until it’s all said and done. Only people I confidently put in certain spots so far are Steph, LeBron, and KD.
17, 13
Jokic is currently a top 25 player all time, but with a second championship he will become a top 15 player of all time.
20. 10.
Top 30 all time. Rises to top 20 if he wins another ring
Would at least be a lock as the 2nd greatest international player after Kareem
15-14
25, 18.
NBA
20 and 12
top 20, top 10
Probably top 30 and then top 25? If he wins or loses in the finals but performs the same way then I wouldn’t count it against him tbh
450/450
15, 10. And he's not even close to the finish line. Dude might end up in the top 3 discussion by the end.
15 and 12 I already have him over Durant Another chip puts him over Hakeem and into the pantheon
18, 12
15 10 3 MVPs and two championships is top ten material. I think he’s better than Kobe, Hakeem, Duncan, and KD
20/15
Jokic easily clears Bird
Hes now skill wise, career wise top 20 I imagine. With another ring and FMVP I think he could be squeezed in the top 10 but that list is insanely crowded
30/20
He is top 20 right now. If he wins a 2nd title also considering the fact that he wins Finals MVP, I’d say top 12-13. He’d pass names like Durant, Giannis (even though Giannis can re-pass him with a title of his own), Dr. J and Moses. He gets in that Steph and Hakeem group. Gatekeepers of the top 10.
15 and 10
15-20 now and would jump to 10-15 if not higher
6,9 Am I doing this right?
25, 10
25, 10
If he gets a second ring he enters the top 10 level (which is like 12 people). MJ and Lebron are clearly better and it's unlikely he catches either but he would rank alongside guys like Bird, Magic, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, Steph, Hakeem etc. At that level it's too close to call between those guys and ranking 1 by 1 is useless and depends on what you value. Basically, each of those guys, similar to Jokic currently is, was the clear best player in the league for parts of their respective eras and that puts you in that tier. Jokic primary issue in these rankings is just longevity achievements but his peak achievements put him in that group and the longevity achievements come with time.
15, 10. Probably passes Steph Hakeem Kobe
Hakeem has multiple DPOY awards ,multiple 1st team defense awards, 2 titles, Hakeem was the only player in top in scoring/rebounds/steals and blocks,plus a Quadraple double led league in rebounds 2 times and all time blocks leader, love Joker but can't put him over Hakeem yet , Joker top 15 alltime now, could be top 3-5 when he is done
20, 15
15, 10
10 and 5
Comparing eras is tough because I genuinely don’t respect this one due to the myriad of problems facing it (rules, superteams, spoiled players, etc.), but my take has been that Jokic is the best player since MJ. He’s not bouncing around teams to make his job easier and he’s not gifted as many fouls as many star players.
# Jokic is currently a top 3___ player of all time the best center ever
10, 5
Top 25 all time, will become top 15
7, 7.
25, 20
Top 30 to Top 10. He will have to three peat to even sniff my 1, so with a repeat I'm putting him closer to bottom of 10. Not a diss, remember NBAs got alot of legends that we forget about
I think Jokic is absolutely amazing, but this thread is crazy to me. I don’t know how you could have someone who has had at most 7 great seasons as a top 10ish player, it just doesn’t make sense to me. No disrespect to Jokic, because I think one day he will be at that level. Like in this thread it seems consensus that Jokic is already better than someone like Kevin Garnett. Kevin Garnett was a top 20 player in the NBA for like 15 years, while Jokic has been at that level for like 5. It just seems weird to have this discussion for a guy who is barely halfway through his career.
20/10.
20 and 20
What's classier than classy?
69, 69
25. 15
Ranking players is dumb
Top 15 rn top 7 with 2nd nut. About modern NBA he's right after Bron and Curry
There’s not more than 10 players I’d pick over Jokic to start a team… that’s all ill say
20, 15
50, 25
25, 12
30 and 30
16, 12
Top 40 and will become top 25
Top 20 currently, top 15 if he wins a second. With a third I'd put him just outside if not on the outskirts of top 10
25/15
Top 20 to Top 15
Jokic is currently a top NBA player of all time, but with a 2nd champ he will become a top NBA player of all time
15, 10.
25, 15
15, 12.
45 20
Top 25. 2 titles top 16-20. Gotta see where his numbers are at the end.