hardenASG13 wrote:tsherkin wrote:hardenASG13 wrote:Explain. Also please comment, do you think Lebron now is close to as good now at his peak, which we are comparing here?
No, I think peak Lebron was notably better than he is now, for obvious reasons.Or do you really think Jokic was that much better in this series
I do, yes.
I think that for primes, Jokic vs Lebron is a good conversation. I think Lebron has an excellent argument against Jokic prime to prime, I just also think that Jokic has a strong argument. Understand, I'm not saying Jokic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prime Lebron, that isn't my contention. I think they're on a similar level. Jokic is a better offensive player IMHO, and Lebron evened it out some with defense. And, of course, was excellent on offense himself.
What I object to is more how people are dismissing Jokic as not being worthy of the conversation, not so much advancing the idea that you HAVE to believe Jokic > Lebron for primes.
That's fair. I disagree that Jokic in this series was that much better than 39 year old Lebron, where as you say it's obvious that prime Lebron was much better than 39 year old Lebron. So much better, that I think prime Lebron wouldve been the best player in this series easily, as he was pretty close as 39 year old. It speaks to how good prime Lebron was, which I think many of the Jokic fanatics here are failing to remember correctly.
I love how tsherkin tells you Jokic has a case against prime LBJ and you dismiss it, state that 39yr old LeBron was 'close' and then state Jokic fans ("fanatics") are failing to remember him correctly.
We remember - and we still think Jokic has a case as backed up by advanced metrics + tsherkin's assessment.
You're now trying to make a case where there isn't one to be had. Take the L!