Jokic is not the best in the world, and has been heavily overrated (NOW YOU CAN CHANGE VOTES)

[Jabroni Lames]

When did it become a negative thing to be called a "system player"?

Jordan was a system player. Kobe was a system player. Nash was a system player. When your talent is THAT exceptional, that dominant.... teams would be stupid not to build the system around you to exploit it. Coaches would get fired for not doing it.

[Kawaii Leonard]

Mark Jackson being too stupid to properly use Curry, Draymond, and Klay doesn’t mean they are system players. All players in the history of the game and history of sports look better when featured in a way that lets their skill sets shine.

If Curry is a product of the system then why aren’t there more Curry’s? He won 4 titles, shouldn’t people try to copy that.

Where did I say Curry is the product of the system? He’s been playing like this since his Davidson days.

Well no he hasn’t. The Mark Jackson team spammed PnR all game, Kerr uses a movement offense. At Davidson Curry transitioned from a SG to PG over the years.

Further proving my point. He needed Kerr’s movement offense to further propel his shooting prowess while being one of the best off-ball players in history. He would never succeed just spamming PnR or playing a position he never excelled at due to size or the prototypical “heres the rock” - go make it happen. Nah, Curry being the outlier and unique player he is, needs and I emphasize needs, a system like Kerr’s. It’s actually insane how some people on this board can’t fathom such an obvious fact.

[tsherkin]

When did it become a negative thing to be called a "system player"?

Since the term was first used, to denigrate people playing inside structured offense. It was used to attack Karl Malone and John Stockton a ton. It implies that the system is the reason for their success, not their ability. Nash is another guy for whom that criticism was often leveled, even though that "system" was "give Nash the freedom to do what he wanted, and give him some spacing and a PnR big." Which is about as light a "system" as it gets.

"System player" is a pejorative, and has been for decades.

[Roger Murdock]

Where did I say Curry is the product of the system? He’s been playing like this since his Davidson days.

Well no he hasn’t. The Mark Jackson team spammed PnR all game, Kerr uses a movement offense. At Davidson Curry transitioned from a SG to PG over the years.

Further proving my point. He needed Kerr’s movement offense to further propel his shooting prowess while being one of the best off-ball players in history. He would never succeed just spamming PnR or playing a position he never excelled at due to size or the prototypical “heres the rock” - go make it happen. Nah, Curry being the outlier and unique player he is, needs and I emphasize needs, a system like Kerr’s.

Every player in sports history needs to be utilized to their strengths to maximize their strengths. Curry having a coach that lets him do what he’s good at doesn’t change the fact he was always this good just underutilized.

I don’t understand how this is some ‘got ya’. He was grossly misused by a stupid coach.

If you told Jordan to play offball all game, run off screens and shoot 14 three pointers every game he’d have been considerably worse and less impactful than he was running the triangle. Is Jordan a system player? Or would that be stupid coaching.

[lessthanjake]

He would be ringless without Kerr and his system. You can stop making yourself look funny.

Again, quite obviously a system player. If you need to understand why, please re-read my previous posts or argue with a wall if you can’t digest it. He wasn’t winning nothing till Kerr showed up and implemented what was clearly lacking for him to excel. You can be a star and a system player, idk who told you otherwise. Maybe you’re getting the term mixed with ‘role-player’.

None of that made sense. What you're talking about is not proper usage of the term "system player." You are specifically incorrect.

That Kerr helped enable the team isn't a commentary on Steph. It's a commentary on team dynamics, which happen on every team, ever. What are you even trying to say? "Oh no, Steph needed to add talent around him and a coach who wasn't a moron in order to win." Yes, how dare he, how different from... everyone else, ever.

2015, their first title, was also Draymond Green's first year as a starter and he was immediately 2nd in the DPOY vote. Barnes started full-time that year as well, enabling Green to shift to the 4, and they had a better bench. Like... context matters. The system didn't enable Steph.

This is as clownish a take as if you'd said the same of Jordan, who didn't win crap until Phil Jackson implemented the triangle... and Scottie Pippen became an All-Star.

Or that Shaq didn't win until Phil Jackson... but also until Kobe replaced Eddie Jones and Nick Van Exel as his lead guard.

"System player" is a phrase designed to describe a player who is able to produce only because of the system. That is demonstrably inaccurate with respect to Steph. "Good coaching" isn't the same thing as someone being a system player in the context of winning titles.

Why are you so black and white? Please link me to where you’re getting spoon fed this definition.

1) you can be a system player and a star (other examples: John Stockton and Karl Malone, Kawhi, Klay)
2) system players can still produce outside of that system and be stars (example: Deron Williams or any pg that played under Thibs)
3) if you’re as good as Curry is, he will still put up the numbers but you are not going to win without the system Kerr tailor made and implemented
4) You really believe Jordan wasn’t going to win without Phil or the triangle?

I don’t understand what your point is.

If, by your way of thinking, you can be a “system player” and “still produce outside of that system and be stars” then what even is a “system player” to you? At that point, you’re just defining “system player” to be a player who is optimally used in a certain specific system. But that’s a totally meaningless point, because every single player in the history of basketball has specific relative strengths and weaknesses that make it so that they are optimally used in a specific system. So you’re essentially defining “system player” to be every player who has ever picked up a basketball. Furthermore, the best players in history are very likely to be put in a system that is optimal for them, because they are obviously the players that teams build around and try to optimize. Steph Curry is one of the best players in history and, unsurprisingly, was eventually put in a system that was pretty optimal for his game. That’s really no different than essentially any top-tier all-time great ever. And actually, Steph was arguably *unlucky* in this, since he was not played in a system that optimized his strengths in his early years, while some players have gotten that from the beginning of their career. In essence, everyone is a “system player” by your definition, and Steph was simply unlucky to not always have been played in the right system.

[Kawaii Leonard]

Well no he hasn’t. The Mark Jackson team spammed PnR all game, Kerr uses a movement offense. At Davidson Curry transitioned from a SG to PG over the years.

Further proving my point. He needed Kerr’s movement offense to further propel his shooting prowess while being one of the best off-ball players in history. He would never succeed just spamming PnR or playing a position he never excelled at due to size or the prototypical “heres the rock” - go make it happen. Nah, Curry being the outlier and unique player he is, needs and I emphasize needs, a system like Kerr’s.

Every player in sports history needs to be utilized to their strengths to maximize their strengths. Curry having a coach that lets him do what he’s good at doesn’t change the fact he was always this good just underutilized.

I don’t understand how this is some ‘got ya’. He was grossly misused by a stupid coach.

If you told Jordan to play offball all game, run off screens and shoot 14 three pointers every game he’d have been considerably worse and less impactful than he was running the triangle. Is Jordan a system player? Or would that be stupid coaching.

It’s almost like that is called coaching and having a game plan? Thanks for clearing that up.

There’s levels to this. And you’re reaching really far to make this compare to having MJ play Steph’s game. Jordan would thrive in any system, even in Kerr’s movement one. I’m not so sure you could say the same for Steph.

[UglyBugBall]

I'm OP and I can't deny Jokic looking like the best player right now. If he wins the ring this year I'll admit hes an ATG and the best player in the world. Still a series and a half left though

You said Luka and Embiid were better than him. Luka missed the play in tournament last year, Embiid still hasn’t made the conference finals, and Jokic won it all last year, becoming the first player to lead the playoffs in points, rebounds, and assists.

You were proven wrong before you ever created this thread.

Healthy Luka and Embiid are at least equal to Joker. If he wins this title then he will have earned an edge

[DimesandKnicks]

Which means about 10 would be high level in any given season. And that...that isn't insane.

94/95

Robinson
Shaq
Ewing
Malone
Hakeem (All top five in MVP voting, at this point in this years list you’d be naming a one dimensional player like Gobert)
Rodman
Kemp
Willis
Horace Grant
Vin Baker
Dale Davis
Mourning
Mutombo
Rick Smits
Chris Webber
Anthony Mason
Cliff Robinson

That’s 17 give or take, not withstanding honorable mentions. This is one year, spanning from 1990 to 2000 and I think we can easily find another 13 that would be high level bigs

When did we change the goalposts to add PFs? That was the whole point. Centers of yesteryear had a lot of stiffs who couldn’t stay on the floor today. Centers of today have the mobility of PFs of 90s and better. They are worse, not better, than today. Why are you even debating this? Just take the L man.

When we framed all the C's in the 90s like they were Greg Ostertag's and there weren't PFs that would slide into the C position in todays game. The PFs of today have the mobilty of PFs of the 90s because they would have been PFs in the 90s, which is why I listed a few PFs. 11 of these players either played C that year or the year prior, while 15 out of the 17 played C over the course of their career. So;yea

[UglyBugBall]

He’s already the best player in the world. That is not up for debate.

Actually is, Embiid was on his way to a unanimous MVP, before he got hurt.

Embiid will never win another MVP again after the robbery last year.

How are you going to argue Jokic over Embiid last year?

[UglyBugBall]

I've been saying this since his first mvp. He's an incredible system player, but he lacks competitive fire and toughness to be an ATG player. His MVP as a 6 seed will be locked at as THE worst mvp season in history. It'll make the Rose and Nash wins seem unanimous.

Jokic is a guy that needs a superstar like Murray to make his game work. He can't take over without that second punch on the perimeter the way other ATGs could. Now that Murray has been exposed, so has Jokic. What's funny is that those really watching told you this year's ago when he only got the sixth seed without him.

To me he is the third best player in the NBA - Luka and Embiid are comfortably ahead of him. Last year he took advantage of an injured field, and a weakened conference in a transition year. He had Murray playing like a superstar and to his credit got it done. But his awards don't match his greatness and in a few years everyone will come around to what I'm saying here right now.

You must be the same poster who claims the Joker is not HIM and also said the Joker is also your favorite player.

Maybe more players should be an incredible "system" player so they can have a better chance at winning a MVP Lol

No, those arent me.

[Sweet Serenity]

They don't hang banners for winning random regular season home games.

The post season is a farce. Let's have all the players do an arduous 82 game slog, and then the healthiest team in the league wins. Lame. The game has changed, players are far more overworked than before, you have more than half the playoffs teams suffereing multiple injuries, allowing teams like the Celtics to sleepwalk through the playoffs when they clearly have issues. A healthy team against the Nuggets would be a different story.

The NBA has been ruined by gambling, massive TV deals, and the greedy Adam Silver not giving two **** about player wellbeing, and just relying on whatever this bs is. If you want to do it like that, better to have the NBA playoffs be like the NFL, where it's one and done each round.

Oh my goodness.

Now the post season is a farce because your obsession continues to **** his pants every post season.

This is some of the most absurd rubbish I’ve read.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone go to such absurd lengths to defend a player.

Silver has given the luxury for players to miss 17 games of the regular season & this bozo still thinks that’s not enough

[Kawaii Leonard]

None of that made sense. What you're talking about is not proper usage of the term "system player." You are specifically incorrect.

That Kerr helped enable the team isn't a commentary on Steph. It's a commentary on team dynamics, which happen on every team, ever. What are you even trying to say? "Oh no, Steph needed to add talent around him and a coach who wasn't a moron in order to win." Yes, how dare he, how different from... everyone else, ever.

2015, their first title, was also Draymond Green's first year as a starter and he was immediately 2nd in the DPOY vote. Barnes started full-time that year as well, enabling Green to shift to the 4, and they had a better bench. Like... context matters. The system didn't enable Steph.

This is as clownish a take as if you'd said the same of Jordan, who didn't win crap until Phil Jackson implemented the triangle... and Scottie Pippen became an All-Star.

Or that Shaq didn't win until Phil Jackson... but also until Kobe replaced Eddie Jones and Nick Van Exel as his lead guard.

"System player" is a phrase designed to describe a player who is able to produce only because of the system. That is demonstrably inaccurate with respect to Steph. "Good coaching" isn't the same thing as someone being a system player in the context of winning titles.

Why are you so black and white? Please link me to where you’re getting spoon fed this definition.

1) you can be a system player and a star (other examples: John Stockton and Karl Malone, Kawhi, Klay)
2) system players can still produce outside of that system and be stars (example: Deron Williams or any pg that played under Thibs)
3) if you’re as good as Curry is, he will still put up the numbers but you are not going to win without the system Kerr tailor made and implemented
4) You really believe Jordan wasn’t going to win without Phil or the triangle?

I don’t understand what your point is.

If, by your way of thinking, you can be a “system player” and “still produce outside of that system and be stars” then what even is a “system player” to you? At that point, you’re just defining “system player” to be a player who is optimally used in a certain specific system. But that’s a totally meaningless point, because every single player in the history of basketball has specific relative strengths and weaknesses that make it so that they are optimally used in a specific system. So you’re essentially defining “system player” to be every player who has ever picked up a basketball. Furthermore, the best players in history are very likely to be put in a system that is optimal for them, because they are obviously the players that teams build around and try to optimize. Steph Curry is one of the best players in history and, unsurprisingly, was eventually put in a system that was pretty optimal for his game. That’s really no different than essentially any top-tier all-time great ever. And actually, Steph was arguably *unlucky* in this, since he was not played in a system that optimized his strengths in his early years, while some players have gotten that from the beginning of their career. In essence, everyone is a “system player” by your definition, and Steph was simply unlucky to not always have been played in the right system.

I’ve made 4 very easily understandable points right there.

What exactly is yours with stating the obvious fact when you break the game down to the x’s and o’s, every player has played under a system. Some need it that custom made to fit their skillsets. In this case, Curry’s need to find specific ways to get open for his shots. The reliance and necessity is right there being the player he is. I don’t see him winning a ring outside the one Kerr implemented. I do see other all time greats winning in multiple others. Hence, a system player.

[Jabroni Lames]

94/95

Robinson
Shaq
Ewing
Malone
Hakeem (All top five in MVP voting, at this point in this years list you’d be naming a one dimensional player like Gobert)
Rodman
Kemp
Willis
Horace Grant
Vin Baker
Dale Davis
Mourning
Mutombo
Rick Smits
Chris Webber
Anthony Mason
Cliff Robinson

That’s 17 give or take, not withstanding honorable mentions. This is one year, spanning from 1990 to 2000 and I think we can easily find another 13 that would be high level bigs

When did we change the goalposts to add PFs? That was the whole point. Centers of yesteryear had a lot of stiffs who couldn’t stay on the floor today. Centers of today have the mobility of PFs of 90s and better. They are worse, not better, than today. Why are you even debating this? Just take the L man.

When we framed all the C's in the 90s like they were Greg Ostertag's and there weren't PFs that would slide into the C position in todays game. The PFs of today have the mobilty of PFs of the 90s because they would have been PFs in the 90s, which is why I listed a few PFs. 11 of these players either played C that year or the year prior, while 15 out of the 17 played C over the course of their career. So;yea

That's not what the original debate was, and you know it. It was about centers, and only centers. That list from 95-96 pretty much ended it (Ostertag, Big Country, Oliver Miller, Montross, etc...). But if you're gonna start making stuff up to save face, then our work is done here.

[binjumper]

Actually is, Embiid was on his way to a unanimous MVP, before he got hurt.

Embiid will never win another MVP again after the robbery last year.

How are you going to argue Jokic over Embiid last year?

one guy cried over it and it wasn't the loser.

[Cubbies2120]

I'm OP and I can't deny Jokic looking like the best player right now. If he wins the ring this year I'll admit hes an ATG and the best player in the world. Still a series and a half left though

You said Luka and Embiid were better than him. Luka missed the play in tournament last year, Embiid still hasn’t made the conference finals, and Jokic won it all last year, becoming the first player to lead the playoffs in points, rebounds, and assists.

You were proven wrong before you ever created this thread.

Healthy Luka and Embiid are at least equal to Joker. If he wins this title then he will have earned an edge

Haha yes, he'll definitely need 2 titles to "earn an edge". Let's ignore the fact that Luka/Embiid are injured because they are lazy and don't take care of their bodies like Jokic does.

Plus, Jokic's performances in the playoffs are in a tier of their own and neither Doncic nor Embiid have any all-time great games like the one he had last night or for most of last season's playoffs (30/14/10 over 20 games).

I think any non-casual can come to an agreement that right now it's Jokic's world and we're all living in it.

We don't need to have silly discussions about whether he's better than Embiid or Doncic (hint: he is), but rather we need to discuss where he belongs on the pantheon of the GOATs.

[DimesandKnicks]

He is a guy who is a great defender in a ton of ways, but just isn’t a good rim protector. And you just seem to think that someone who is a better rim protector must be a better defender. You’re wrong.

I'm not wrong because I never said or implied that. Defense, to me, is a players ability to defend his man and to play help defense. I think Jokic is a solid to good help defender. He isn't a great man defender, and we really can't determine if he is because he's usually hiding on the other teams worst front court player.

Data isn’t just wrong because you don’t like what it tells you. Did you ever think that maybe the data says Jokic is a really good defender up there with some of the guys you’ve mentioned above because there are tons of things he does extremely well defensively? Again, you seem to be unable to conceptualize defense as anything other than rim protection and perhaps foot speed on the perimeter. Jokic is genuinely absolutely elite at many aspects of defense.

What does he do as good or better than the players I mentioned? It isn't that I don't like the data, there are just too many abnormalities for this data to be validated.

DRAPM has Deshawn Stevenson as one of the top 50 worst defenders, below the likes of Enes Freedom, and Isaiah Thomas.

Isaiah Thomas is nine spots above Triston Thompson. Thompson is one of the better post defenders in the league in his prime. He's one of the few player who can defend the rim, defend the post, and switich on smaller/quicker players. This metric has him as a **** defender. Worse than Eddy Curry, Wally Szcerbiak, Melo, Al Jefferson.

Klay Thompson is worse than Mo Williams Evan Fournier and David Lee. Steve Nash is better than Kobe and shares the same number as Dwayne Wade.

Curry and Kemba are better defenders than John Wall.

Raefer Alston is better than Baron Davis and Trevor Ariza.

Kevin looney is worse than Donovan Mitchell, and Demarcous Cousins and Nikola Vucevic.

Shawn Marion, Brook Lopez, Kwahi, OG, Kirlenko, Smart and Horford are all worse than Jokic.

Camby is worse than Lamar Odom and Odom is up there with Tyson Chandler, Bam, and Metta World Peace

Marko Jaric is as good as KCP.

Alex Caruso beats out Draymond, Tim Duncan, and Ben Wallace

This data set is littered with weirdness that doesn’t track with these players impact on the actual game.

I don’t know why you’re saying I’m not understanding how much his rebounding impacts his defense when it’s one of the reasons I put forth as him ranking so favorably in advanced stats.

But you talk about it as if it *wrongly* increases estimations of his defense. It increases estimations of his defense because it is a impactful thing defensively. Jokic is absolutely elite at defensive rebounding, and this is a massive part of defense and it is a reason impact data ends up coming out showing him being a good defender. When you get tons of contested rebounds on the defensive end, the other team gets a lot less second-chance points when you’re on the court, and when they get fewer second-chance points when you’re on the court, the data unsurprisingly will likely show that your presence on the court lowers the number of points opposing teams score. And that’s how you look good in impact stats.

Kind of sort of, because again, when I say defense, I mean a players ability to defend his man and help on defense. If rebounds are such a huge part of increase the estimation of a players defense why doesn't Dwight Howard rank higher?

Kind of sort of, because again, when I say defense, I mean a players ability to defend his man and help on defense. Kind of sort of, because again, when I say defense, I mean a players ability to defend his man and help on defense. If rebounds are such a huge part of increase the estimation of a players defensive impact, according to this metric, why doesn't Dwight Howard rank higher? Why does it have Camby and Jokic neck and neck when he could do everything Jokic could do defensively plus being an elite shot blocker? Why does Lamar Odom outflank Tyson Chandler? How does Caruso outflank Ben Wallace, Gobert, Wallace? And if it's weighted so heavely, than maybe we're having a symantic arguement about "impact on defense" vs "how good of a defender a player is". Jokic rebounding may make him a high impact player defensively, but certianly not more than guys that he's ranked near. But maybe that number will trail off as he advanced in his career and he drops below the likes of the Marions, Khawi's and Camby's and at the conlcusion of his career that number will be more inlign with his overall impact on defense...just as Dwights number.

You very clearly have absolutely no idea whatsoever what RAPM is. I’ve repeatedly explained it to you, but yet you’re talking as if being “a better FT shooter” and “averaging more assists” somehow increases Jokic’s DRAPM. You clearly still just fundamentally have no idea what RAPM is, since you keep acting like it is a box-data-based stat. It isn’t. Racking up assist numbers has no direct effect whatsoever on RAPM. There is no part of a RAPM calculation that ever looks at assist stats or FT% or even a player’s rebounds. Read about what RAPM is. I can’t keep going around and around in a discussion about stats with someone who simply is unable to understand what the stats are at a foundational level.

I think I've made that much clear. I knew nothing about it until you mentioned it and haven't dedicated much time to looking into it. This is the creator of RAPM discussing how its calculated for nearly 30 minues. This calculation includes mathematical symbols that I've never seen before.

Watch on YouTube

TDLR; It's freaking complicated. I have absolutely no shame in not understanding something that I've just come to know existed.

While it may not use box stats as inputs, I believe it does take the margin of the score into account, all of these box stats impact the score. If you're a really great offensive player, for example, it's clearly going to impact you RAPM, the same way being a great rebounder is going to impact your DRAPM, I assume.

Yes, I can watch the game. And I see Jokic being smart with his rotations, not making almost any mental mistakes, getting back in transition much better than most centers, being elite at getting steals and deflections, not committing many unnecessary fouls, being too strong for opponents to move in the post, and being one of the greatest defensive rebounders of his generation. He’s not a good rim protector. It’s a weakness. But he has so many huge strengths defensively that he’s still a good defender. My eye test can tell me that, and the data tells me that too. If Jokic were *also* a great rim protector, he’d be one of the greatest defenders in history. He’s not that, but he is a good defender, and that’s exactly what the data says.

Is he a good man defender...and I don't mean when he's allowed to hide on the opposite teams least effective offensive player. Is he a good help defender? Is he good on rotation and being where he's suppose to be. Maybe. Is he a good rim protector, no. So I'd agrue that he isn't a good man defender, when guarding palyers who are actual offensive weapons--beause he doesn't, he is solid at rotations and he's a bad rim protector. These attributes don't make for a "great" defender.

We’ve already been over this. They did similarly well in 2006 because their regular season offense was better in 2006 than it was in 2007. And, as I’ve said, a good deal of the credit for that goes to LeBron. But we aren’t talking about whether LeBron “carried” the 2006 Cavaliers to a pretty good regular season offense. If that were the question, maybe the answer would actually be yes (though he certainly didn’t carry them to a pretty good offense in the 2006 playoffs—where they had a below average offense)! What we are actually talking about is whether LeBron “carried” the 2007 Cavaliers to the Finals. And, the answer to that is clearly no, since the team was clearly carried by their elite defense, in which LeBron was just another cog. I don’t see how you think this point about 2006 does anything for you here at all. Your claim was about 2007 specifically, and your claim was wrong about 2007 specifically. 2006 is irrelevant here. LeBron didn’t go to the Finals in 2006.

No. Maybe that's what you're talking about. I said Lebron "carried" scrubs to the NBA finals. This same scrubs played for that 2006 team and they were a game away from the conference finals

[Infinite Llamas]

I'm OP and I can't deny Jokic looking like the best player right now. If he wins the ring this year I'll admit hes an ATG and the best player in the world. Still a series and a half left though

You said Luka and Embiid were better than him. Luka missed the play in tournament last year, Embiid still hasn’t made the conference finals, and Jokic won it all last year, becoming the first player to lead the playoffs in points, rebounds, and assists.

You were proven wrong before you ever created this thread.

Healthy Luka and Embiid are at least equal to Joker. If he wins this title then he will have earned an edge

Equal how?

So we are giving out hypothetical championships now to make our arguments? Joker has one and a trophy case filled with hardware.

Embiid and Luka are the ones with catching up to do. They aren’t on his level. Nobody in the league is.

[DimesandKnicks]

When did we change the goalposts to add PFs? That was the whole point. Centers of yesteryear had a lot of stiffs who couldn’t stay on the floor today. Centers of today have the mobility of PFs of 90s and better. They are worse, not better, than today. Why are you even debating this? Just take the L man.

When we framed all the C's in the 90s like they were Greg Ostertag's and there weren't PFs that would slide into the C position in todays game. The PFs of today have the mobilty of PFs of the 90s because they would have been PFs in the 90s, which is why I listed a few PFs. 11 of these players either played C that year or the year prior, while 15 out of the 17 played C over the course of their career. So;yea

That's not what the original debate was, and you know it. It was about centers, and only centers. That list from 95-96 pretty much ended it (Ostertag, Big Country, Oliver Miller, Montross, etc...). But if you're gonna start making stuff up to save face, then our work is done here.

No.

He also plays in an era where there isn’t much top end talent at the C position; conversely, outside of Gobert his run to the finals was independent of any physical/ strong big men or C’s he really had to guard defensively. Imagine Jokic going up against Robinson, Duncan, Ewing, Shaq, Hakeem, Mourning, Mutombo, Smits.

[famicommander]

Actually is, Embiid was on his way to a unanimous MVP, before he got hurt.

Embiid will never win another MVP again after the robbery last year.

How are you going to argue Jokic over Embiid last year?

Jokic led Embiid (and the entire NBA) in VORP, PER, WS/48, and BPM. He was much better in on/off numbers and on-count plus minus, he played in more games, he had a better winning percentage in games he played, he finished on a higher seed in a tougher conference with a weaker supporting cast, and last season the Sixers actually had a better record when Embiid sat than when he played because Harden carried them.

Last year wasn't even remotely close. It was Jokic's best season and Embiid only got the award for three reasons:
1. He spent three entire years crying for it in the media
2. Perkins and Stephen A. played the race card
3. A bunch of gatekeeping clown sportswriters didn't want Jokic to win 3 in a row simply because Jordan never did and they can't handle Jokic getting an honor like that.

Jokic has been the best player in the NBA for the last four years and at no point in that timespan has it been close.

Embiid is a fraudulent stat padding clown. He played almost 40% of his games this regular season against teams that won 27 games or fewer and over 62% of his games at home. He hurt himself multiple times going back into blowouts late in the game to chase his stupid 30 point/10 rebound streak, which is the literal definition of stat padding.

[Roger Murdock]

Further proving my point. He needed Kerr’s movement offense to further propel his shooting prowess while being one of the best off-ball players in history. He would never succeed just spamming PnR or playing a position he never excelled at due to size or the prototypical “heres the rock” - go make it happen. Nah, Curry being the outlier and unique player he is, needs and I emphasize needs, a system like Kerr’s.

Every player in sports history needs to be utilized to their strengths to maximize their strengths. Curry having a coach that lets him do what he’s good at doesn’t change the fact he was always this good just underutilized.

I don’t understand how this is some ‘got ya’. He was grossly misused by a stupid coach.

If you told Jordan to play offball all game, run off screens and shoot 14 three pointers every game he’d have been considerably worse and less impactful than he was running the triangle. Is Jordan a system player? Or would that be stupid coaching.

It’s almost like that is called coaching and having a game plan? Thanks for clearing that up.

There’s levels to this. And you’re reaching really far to make this compare to having MJ play Steph’s game. Jordan would thrive in any system, even in Kerr’s movement one. I’m not so sure you could say the same for Steph.

Playing in a system that grossly misused his skillset, he made all NBA second team and won a playoff series before he turned 26. Grossly misused and before his prime he was a top 10 player.