RealGM

AleksandarN wrote:

sikma42 wrote:

Duke4life831 wrote:
Ya Id say so. I mean in the last 4 years Jokic has played in 70 more games than Embiid. Put that into perspective, the most games Embiid has ever played in a season is 68. So in the last 4 years, Denver has essentially gotten 1 extra regular season out of Jokic vs what Philly has gotten from Embiid.

In the last 4 years Id say Jokic has been the leader in probably at least 80% or more of the advanced stats for the regular season. Then you go and look at what he's done in the playoffs. Jokic has arguably been a top 3 playoff performer of all time. And unlike Luka and Embiid, Jokic does have the championship.

And 3 MVPs in 4 years. How many other guys have done that? 7? Id say Jokic has a pretty sizeable gap between him and everyone else at the moment.

Embiid was the front runner for MVP this year and won it last year. If you are head and shoulders better than someone you don’t lose to them back to back for MVPs if not for an injury/rule change.

And Luka imo played better than him this year and will only lose do the strength of his support cast. I think we are conflating awards with who is better. When Shaq played, even when he didn’t when the MVP, we ALL knew who was better…the MVP isn’t for the best player.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Did you not read his post. He pointed out the availability of Jokic compared to Embiid. Jokic has been way more effective than Embiid in the playoffs not even close. Jokic is the best player in the league.

sikma42 wrote:

AleksandarN wrote:

sikma42 wrote:Embiid was the front runner for MVP this year and won it last year. If you are head and shoulders better than someone you don’t lose to them back to back for MVPs if not for an injury/rule change.

And Luka imo played better than him this year and will only lose do the strength of his support cast. I think we are conflating awards with who is better. When Shaq played, even when he didn’t when the MVP, we ALL knew who was better…the MVP isn’t for the best player.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Did you not read his post. He pointed out the availability of Jokic compared to Embiid. Jokic has been way more effective than Embiid in the playoffs not even close. Jokic is the best player in the league.

Did you read the comment and what the discourse was about. I agree Jokic is the best player in the league. It’s about the gap between Shaq/Jokic and their contemporaries superstars.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Duke4life831 wrote:Hard to go against Jokic. Because there is no projecting on how impactful Jokic would be in this era. Jokic is a 3x MVP (probably should be 4), is a champion and is an advanced stat marvel. We know what Jokic looks like in this era, he is the best player in the league by probably a sizeable margin.

If Im starting a team in today's game. Ya give me Jokic knowing what his floor is in today's league.

AleksandarN wrote:

Exp0sed wrote:I'm very high on Jokic but Shaq is literally one of the only guys who were clearly better

very hard to compare between eras but I think in this day and age, with so much more money involved as well, Shaq would have alot more incentive to actually stay fit and professional

social media too, would put alot of pressure on a guy like Shaq
he'd be unstoppable

with modern coaching, schemes, medicine, shooting mechanics and analytics there would really be no answer for a more professional and well conditioned version of Shaq

Shaq has been struggling with his weight all of his life. Including now. What makes you think this changes

Patches Perry wrote:Comparing great players outside of their eras to great players in their own era will almost always go to the great player in their own era. I'd take Shaq easily in 2001 but Jokic easily in 2024.

GameChannel wrote:I'd take Jokic. He gets the edge purely based on the fact that there's no drama with him and he comes prepared and in shape for the season. Shaq was not nearly as disciplined and lacked the drive.

Exp0sed wrote:

Yoshun wrote:I'd take Shaq, he's the better defender.

Anyone who pretends this "isn't close" doesn't know what they're talking about. This is a tough call.

I have Shaq but "better defender" might be the last argument i'd use tbh
rookie Shaq could def hang but Lakers Shaq would be a defensive liability. sure he can protect the rim much better than Jokic but that's that..in all other facets of a modern defense - Jokic is better

Shaq was abused in the PNR even back in the day
Jokic might have a slow first step but he can sprint pretty fast tbh and he is a workhorse. Shaq was lazy, you really think Shaq would be closing out on 3 pt shooters? half ass*d at best

still Shaq for me, but def not because of "defense"

Jokic is already posing a huge issue for switch heavy modern schemes, imagine switching everything and have Shaq guarded by a guard inside haha. in short - teams would have to change their whole defense, there's no way you can switch everything with Shaq around

moderndarwin wrote:If you were the GM and you had to build out for the next 15 years. Guaranteed they stay with you. You’ll build the team out around them and currently have let’s say top 5 shooting and good starters currently. You won’t get another top 5 draft pick but you’ll get 10-30 normal sort of picks from here on out depending how things go.

Do you take Joker or Shaq? They’ll both be 20 in the first season

nate33 wrote:It was very difficult to get Shaq to play "the right way". He was usually lazy on defense and a mediocre passer. Phil Jackson managed to reach him for about 2.5 years, but that's it. The rest of his career, he was not the best he could be. I'd definitely prefer Jokic. He elevates his teammates more, he motivates his teammates to play unselfishly, and he has the versatility to coexist alongside any type of offensive player. He is also more durable.

sikma42 wrote:

nate33 wrote:It was very difficult to get Shaq to play "the right way". He was usually lazy on defense and a mediocre passer. Phil Jackson managed to reach him for about 2.5 years, but that's it. The rest of his career, he was not the best he could be. I'd definitely prefer Jokic. He elevates his teammates more, he motivates his teammates to play unselfishly, and he has the versatility to coexist alongside any type of offensive player. He is also more durable.

Shaq was a mediocre passer?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Nuntius wrote:

Patches Perry wrote:Comparing great players outside of their eras to great players in their own era will almost always go to the great player in their own era. I'd take Shaq easily in 2001 but Jokic easily in 2024.

Exactly.

sikma42 wrote:

nate33 wrote:It was very difficult to get Shaq to play "the right way". He was usually lazy on defense and a mediocre passer. Phil Jackson managed to reach him for about 2.5 years, but that's it. The rest of his career, he was not the best he could be. I'd definitely prefer Jokic. He elevates his teammates more, he motivates his teammates to play unselfishly, and he has the versatility to coexist alongside any type of offensive player. He is also more durable.

Shaq was a mediocre passer?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app