Nikola Jokic - 23-24 NBA Thread - '24 NBA MVP & 23 Finals NBA MVP

[lessthanjake]

Jokic is 1-3 (soon to be 1-4?) against teams with an SRS of 5.0 or higher. His only win came in the bubble against the Clippers.

These types of arbitrary playoff record things people bring up are pretty meaningless imo. Jokic has only played on one team with an srs above 5 himself(this year's team). Even if Denver loses to Minn they still have 3-4 years to retool and win more. Maybe even longer.

There's an average of 4 teams with an SRS of 5.0+ every year and pretty much every champion has an SRS of 5.0+. Not being able to beat a top 4 team when you are in talks for GOAT status is pretty damning.

5.0 is a prefect cutoff line. There is a huge sample size of how GOAT level players perform against teams with an SRS above and below 5.0, and there is a drastic difference between the two. Jokic is 8-1 against teams with an SRS below 5.0. Jordan is 16-0. Curry is 17-1. Kobe is 20-1. LeBron is 37-3. Thats a combined 98-6 (94.23%). We shouldn't be shocked when these GOAT level players beat non contenders in the playoffs (SRS below 5.0). They aren't challenged at that level. Those same 5 players are 38-33 (soon to be 38-34?) against teams with an SRS of 5.0+.

Former MVP's and their playoffs record against teams with an SRS of 5+

Russell: 3-1 (75.00%)
Jordan: 14-7 (66.66%)
Curry: 6-4 (60.00%)
Kobe: 13-9 (59.09%)
Magic: 7-5 (58.33%)
Shaq: 11-8 (57.89%)
Duncan: 7-8 (46.66%)
Hakeem: 6-7 (46.15%)
Kareem: 5-6 (45.45%)
Garnett: 5-6 (45.45%)
Bird: 3-4 (42.86%)
Nowitzki: 6-10 (37.50%)
Chamberlain: 4-7 (36.36%)
Durant: 4-7 (36.36%)
Malone: 6-11 (35.29%)
Westbrook: 3-6 (33.33%)
Giannis: 1-2 (33.33%)
LeBron: 4-10 (28.57%)
Nash: 4-10 (28.57%)
Moses: 2-5 (28.57%)
Barkley: 3-8 (27.27%)
Harden: 3-9 (25.00%)
Robinson: 2-6 (25.00%)
Jokic: 1-4? (20.00%)
Iverson: 0-2 (00.00%)

Obviously Jokic still has a lot of time, though. Jordan started 1-6 and followed that up with 14-1 to finish 15-7.

This is a good point. And it is indeed an area where Jokic is lacking, at least at the moment.

That said, context is of course important here. These players haven’t had the same teammates or faced the same opponents. For instance, if we went through these, I think we’d find that the vast majority of wins against 5+ SRS teams that these guys have had were with a substantially better sidekick than Jamal Murray. And that’s not even mentioning the fact that 2 of Jokic’s losses to 5+ SRS teams were with Murray out.

In general, I think the way I’d put it is this: A guy who is roughly around the top 10 all time generally will almost always beat teams that are below 5 SRS. Once you get to 5+ SRS opponents, it gets a lot tougher, and even players who are that good usually need a seriously good sidekick (like, roughly all-NBA level, or at least solid all star) to win, though they may be able to occasionally do it without that (with the chances dwindling down towards essentially zero the worse you make the rest of the team). Even assuming the Nuggets lose to the Wolves (a pretty reasonable assumption at this point), I don’t think Jokic is actually particularly inconsistent with that. As you point out, he has been quite consistent at beating opponents that are below 5 SRS, so that part is checked off. Once we get above that, he’ll have gone 1-2 against 5+ SRS opponents with Murray, and 0-2 without him. Murray is not an all-NBA level player (or even a solid all-star), so I think, even with Murray, Jokic’s situation falls in the “may be able to occasionally do it” category, and then without Murray things fall in the “chances dwindling down towards essentially zero” category. Which makes the results make sense IMO.

Personally, I’ve always said that the Nuggets need Murray to play at an all-NBA level in the playoffs for me to have much confidence in them. And that’s not a criticism of Jokic, but rather an acknowledgment of the reality regarding how difficult winning a title is. Last year, they got the double-whammy of Murray playing great and the opponents not being overly strong (though I think they were clearly better than their SRS). This year, they seem to have the opposite—with Murray being genuinely bad and the opponents being quite good (even if they manage to beat the Timberwolves, there’s just going to be other heavyweights in the way).

[parsnips33]

Curry had a pretty deep supporting cast in 2022 even if he didn't have a clear number 2 star. They were just concentrated entirely on the defensive end so they get less credit

I mean as much as people love the narratives - nobody is winning a ring by themselves

Was the 22 supporting cast notably deep compared to other championship teams?

Well you possibly had the best perimeter defender in an era in pre-abdomen strain GP2. and he was finishing at the rim like peak DeAndre Jordan, and shooting well from 3.... And again he got 7th man minutes. So yeah I would say so. I mean Curry was pretty excellent in the year before in 2021 and they couldn't even get a playoff bid. Teammates matter, a lot.

As far as it relates to Denver's performance right now, Minnesota clearly has something special going. They don't particularly remind me of too many teams, but it's hard to exaggerate how well they are playing, They had a -7 defense in the RS, their defense has been every bit as good and now the offense is high level led BY Edwards and Towns. The only big that ranked higher than KAT's best regular seasons in impact metrics going back decades in Jokic, That's an ATG team.

You will never hear a negative word out of me about GPII, but we've now moved from "you need an all-star 2nd option" to talking about a guy playing under 20 minutes a game off the bench. You need depth to win a ring and the 22 Dubs were a great team, but that team was seriously lacking in reliable creation outside of Steph

[Cavsfansince84]

I mean as much as people love the narratives - nobody is winning a ring by themselves

Was the 22 supporting cast notably deep compared to other championship teams?

Teams that win titles don't exist in vacuums though. They just have to be better than the other teams trying to win a title that year.

Agree with this, but I think I might be missing your point

My point is that you can only really compare them to other teams from that particular seasons. A team could be very strong in one league/year and somewhat weak in another. There can also be a context of injuries which allow teams to win.

[EmpireFalls]

I mean as much as people love the narratives - nobody is winning a ring by themselves

Was the 22 supporting cast notably deep compared to other championship teams?

Well you possibly had the best perimeter defender in an era in pre-abdomen strain GP2. and he was finishing at the rim like peak DeAndre Jordan, and shooting well from 3.... And again he got 7th man minutes. So yeah I would say so. I mean Curry was pretty excellent in the year before in 2021 and they couldn't even get a playoff bid. Teammates matter, a lot.

As far as it relates to Denver's performance right now, Minnesota clearly has something special going. They don't particularly remind me of too many teams, but it's hard to exaggerate how well they are playing, They had a -7 defense in the RS, their defense has been every bit as good and now the offense is high level led BY Edwards and Towns. The only big that ranked higher than KAT's best regular seasons in impact metrics going back decades in Jokic, That's an ATG team.

You will never hear a negative word out of me about GPII, but we've now moved from "you need an all-star 2nd option" to talking about a guy playing under 20 minutes a game off the bench. You need depth to win a ring and the 22 Dubs were a great team, but that team was seriously lacking in reliable creation outside of Steph

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but this is pretty huge Jordan Poole disrespect. He was a legitimately very good perimeter shooter, penetrator, and shot creator that postseason. Super quick and burnt teams off the dribble and shot really well. That Game 6 run to put the Finals away was almost all Poole.

[parsnips33]

Teams that win titles don't exist in vacuums though. They just have to be better than the other teams trying to win a title that year.

Agree with this, but I think I might be missing your point

My point is that you can only really compare them to other teams from that particular seasons. A team could be very strong in one league/year and somewhat weak in another. There can also be a context of injuries which allow teams to win.

That same season comparison is kinda inherent in referring to them as the champions. They were the best team in the league that year. Still think there's potentially something to be gleaned by comparing them to past and future champions

[parsnips33]

Well you possibly had the best perimeter defender in an era in pre-abdomen strain GP2. and he was finishing at the rim like peak DeAndre Jordan, and shooting well from 3.... And again he got 7th man minutes. So yeah I would say so. I mean Curry was pretty excellent in the year before in 2021 and they couldn't even get a playoff bid. Teammates matter, a lot.

As far as it relates to Denver's performance right now, Minnesota clearly has something special going. They don't particularly remind me of too many teams, but it's hard to exaggerate how well they are playing, They had a -7 defense in the RS, their defense has been every bit as good and now the offense is high level led BY Edwards and Towns. The only big that ranked higher than KAT's best regular seasons in impact metrics going back decades in Jokic, That's an ATG team.

You will never hear a negative word out of me about GPII, but we've now moved from "you need an all-star 2nd option" to talking about a guy playing under 20 minutes a game off the bench. You need depth to win a ring and the 22 Dubs were a great team, but that team was seriously lacking in reliable creation outside of Steph

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but this is pretty huge Jordan Poole disrespect. He was a legitimately very good perimeter shooter, penetrator, and shot creator that postseason. Super quick and burnt teams off the dribble and shot really well. That Game 6 run to put the Finals away was almost all Poole.

He was fantastic, but I wouldn't say super reliable. Granted we got more good JP than bad JP that season

[rk2023]

This is a good point. And it is indeed an area where Jokic is lacking, at least at the moment.

That said, context is of course important here. These players haven’t had the same teammates or faced the same opponents. For instance, if we went through these, I think we’d find that the vast majority of wins against 5+ SRS teams that these guys have had were with a substantially better sidekick than Jamal Murray. And that’s not even mentioning the fact that 2 of Jokic’s losses to 5+ SRS teams were with Murray out.

In general, I think the way I’d put it is this: A guy who is roughly around the top 10 all time generally will almost always beat teams that are below 5 SRS. Once you get to 5+ SRS opponents, it gets a lot tougher, and even players who are that good usually need a seriously good sidekick (like, roughly all-NBA level, or at least solid all star) to win, though they may be able to occasionally do it without that (with the chances dwindling down towards essentially zero the worse you make the rest of the team). Even assuming the Nuggets lose to the Wolves (a pretty reasonable assumption at this point), I don’t think Jokic is actually particularly inconsistent with that. As you point out, he has been quite consistent at beating opponents that are below 5 SRS, so that part is checked off. Once we get above that, he’ll have gone 1-2 against 5+ SRS opponents with Murray, and 0-2 without him. Murray is not an all-NBA level player (or even a solid all-star), so I think, even with Murray, Jokic’s situation falls in the “may be able to occasionally do it” category, and then without Murray things fall in the “chances dwindling down towards essentially zero” category. Which makes the results make sense IMO.

Personally, I’ve always said that the Nuggets need Murray to play at an all-NBA level in the playoffs for me to have much confidence in them. And that’s not a criticism of Jokic, but rather an acknowledgment of the reality regarding how difficult winning a title is. Last year, they got the double-whammy of Murray playing great and the opponents not being overly strong (though I think they were clearly better than their SRS). This year, they seem to have the opposite—with Murray being genuinely bad and the opponents being quite good (even if they manage to beat the Timberwolves, there’s just going to be other heavyweights in the way).

Assuming they beat MN (which is a very steep uphill battle atp), I see them having their way with OKC; same goes for Dallas, albeit one of them is a significantly higher Regular Season SRS team.

Can’t say the same about Boston, given their 5 out offense and perimeter defenders to throw at Murray.

[bigboi]

Steph had one of the deepest rosters in the league and he was outplayed by Jokic missing Murray, Mpj and Kcp in their series too

Anyone who thought Jokic was on Bron or Mj level is deluded and most likely a teenager

Wait I thought it was impossible to beat a 50 win team without a star as a second option unless you were Lebron? Or we're calling Wiggins a star now?

Curry had a pretty deep supporting cast in 2022 even if he didn't have a clear number 2 star. They were just concentrated entirely on the defensive end so they get less credit

Hmmmmm. Yet Warriors were never the favorites to win the championship while Nuggets have been one of the favorites all season. How does that work?

[Cavsfansince84]

That same season comparison is kinda inherent in referring to them as the champions. They were the best team in the league that year. Still think there's potentially something to be gleaned by comparing them to past and future champions

Just keep in mind that Steph had sort of a weak rs in 2022, missed 18 games(during which the team went 8-10 to keep them in contention for hca) and still won 53 games. That's not a weak supporting cast imo. Poole really stepped up when they needed him to as did Wiggins.

[Special_Puppy]

Wait I thought it was impossible to beat a 50 win team without a star as a second option unless you were Lebron? Or we're calling Wiggins a star now?

Curry had a pretty deep supporting cast in 2022 even if he didn't have a clear number 2 star. They were just concentrated entirely on the defensive end so they get less credit

Hmmmmm. Yet Warriors were never the favorites to win the championship while Nuggets have been one of the favorites all season. How does that work?

People greatly overrating Jokic's supporting cast? I simultaneously thought that Jokic was the BITW while almost not being impressed by his supporting cast while also having the Nuggets losing in the second round (but to the Sons) so this isn't just post hoc cope.

[oaktownwarriors87]

These types of arbitrary playoff record things people bring up are pretty meaningless imo. Jokic has only played on one team with an srs above 5 himself(this year's team). Even if Denver loses to Minn they still have 3-4 years to retool and win more. Maybe even longer.

There's an average of 4 teams with an SRS of 5.0+ every year and pretty much every champion has an SRS of 5.0+. Not being able to beat a top 4 team when you are in talks for GOAT status is pretty damning.

5.0 is a prefect cutoff line. There is a huge sample size of how GOAT level players perform against teams with an SRS above and below 5.0, and there is a drastic difference between the two. Jokic is 8-1 against teams with an SRS below 5.0. Jordan is 16-0. Curry is 17-1. Kobe is 20-1. LeBron is 37-3. Thats a combined 98-6 (94.23%). We shouldn't be shocked when these GOAT level players beat non contenders in the playoffs (SRS below 5.0). They aren't challenged at that level. Those same 5 players are 38-33 (soon to be 38-34?) against teams with an SRS of 5.0+.

Former MVP's and their playoffs record against teams with an SRS of 5+

Russell: 3-1 (75.00%)
Jordan: 14-7 (66.66%)
Curry: 6-4 (60.00%)
Kobe: 13-9 (59.09%)
Magic: 7-5 (58.33%)
Shaq: 11-8 (57.89%)
Duncan: 7-8 (46.66%)
Hakeem: 6-7 (46.15%)
Kareem: 5-6 (45.45%)
Garnett: 5-6 (45.45%)
Bird: 3-4 (42.86%)
Nowitzki: 6-10 (37.50%)
Chamberlain: 4-7 (36.36%)
Durant: 4-7 (36.36%)
Malone: 6-11 (35.29%)
Westbrook: 3-6 (33.33%)
Giannis: 1-2 (33.33%)
LeBron: 4-10 (28.57%)
Nash: 4-10 (28.57%)
Moses: 2-5 (28.57%)
Barkley: 3-8 (27.27%)
Harden: 3-9 (25.00%)
Robinson: 2-6 (25.00%)
Jokic: 1-4? (20.00%)
Iverson: 0-2 (00.00%)

Obviously Jokic still has a lot of time, though. Jordan started 1-6 and followed that up with 14-1 to finish 15-7.

Can I ask why you use 5? Why not 4? Does the distribution meaningfully change using 4 SRS? It just seems rather arbitrary to me maybe I’m missing something.

Since the NBA expanded to 16 team playoffs about 80% of champions have an SRS above 5.0, and there are an average of 4.0 teams every year with an SRS of 5.0 or higher. A team with and SRS of 5.0-5.99 is almost 2.5x more likely to win a championship than a team with an SRS of 4.0-4.99.

Since the 16 team playoff expansion:

Code: Select all

SRS      Teams Champs Percentage That Won
8.0+      24    12   50.00%
6.0-7.99  83    11   13.25%
5.0-5.99  59    9    15.25%
4.0-4.99  61    4    6.56%
3.0-3.99  83    3    3.61%
2.0-2.99  105   1    0.95%
1.0-1.99  106   0    0.00%
0.0-0.99  83    0    0.00%
<0.00     559   0    0.00%

Obviously teams with an SRS of 8.0 are a group of their own. 50% won it all while teams between 5.00-7.99 won 14.1% of the time. There is a significant drop off again going down to 4 and the drop continues below that.

Then you have to look at the teams below 5.0 that did win. 94-95 Rockets (2.32) had significant injuries in the regular season and were coming off a Championship. The 00-01 Lakers (3.74) were coming off a Championship and had significant injuries in the regular season. The 22-23 Nuggets (3.04) had some injuries and they never even faced a team with an SRS over 3.0. The 09-10 Lakers (4.78) were coming off a championship. The 05-06 Heat (3.59) had significant injuries in the regular season and an older team. There is definitely a patter with these teams.

5.00+ also seems to be where players are challenged. Look at LeBron, Jordan, Curry and Kobe. They are unbeatable when facing a team below 5.0.

[lessthanjake]

This is a good point. And it is indeed an area where Jokic is lacking, at least at the moment.

That said, context is of course important here. These players haven’t had the same teammates or faced the same opponents. For instance, if we went through these, I think we’d find that the vast majority of wins against 5+ SRS teams that these guys have had were with a substantially better sidekick than Jamal Murray. And that’s not even mentioning the fact that 2 of Jokic’s losses to 5+ SRS teams were with Murray out.

In general, I think the way I’d put it is this: A guy who is roughly around the top 10 all time generally will almost always beat teams that are below 5 SRS. Once you get to 5+ SRS opponents, it gets a lot tougher, and even players who are that good usually need a seriously good sidekick (like, roughly all-NBA level, or at least solid all star) to win, though they may be able to occasionally do it without that (with the chances dwindling down towards essentially zero the worse you make the rest of the team). Even assuming the Nuggets lose to the Wolves (a pretty reasonable assumption at this point), I don’t think Jokic is actually particularly inconsistent with that. As you point out, he has been quite consistent at beating opponents that are below 5 SRS, so that part is checked off. Once we get above that, he’ll have gone 1-2 against 5+ SRS opponents with Murray, and 0-2 without him. Murray is not an all-NBA level player (or even a solid all-star), so I think, even with Murray, Jokic’s situation falls in the “may be able to occasionally do it” category, and then without Murray things fall in the “chances dwindling down towards essentially zero” category. Which makes the results make sense IMO.

Personally, I’ve always said that the Nuggets need Murray to play at an all-NBA level in the playoffs for me to have much confidence in them. And that’s not a criticism of Jokic, but rather an acknowledgment of the reality regarding how difficult winning a title is. Last year, they got the double-whammy of Murray playing great and the opponents not being overly strong (though I think they were clearly better than their SRS). This year, they seem to have the opposite—with Murray being genuinely bad and the opponents being quite good (even if they manage to beat the Timberwolves, there’s just going to be other heavyweights in the way).

Assuming they beat MN (which is a very steep uphill battle atp), I see them having their way with OKC; same goes for Dallas, albeit one of them is a significantly higher Regular Season SRS team.

Can’t say the same about Boston, given their 5 out offense and perimeter defenders to throw at Murray.

I personally wouldn’t be particularly confident about Denver beating OKC, but I’m pretty high on OKC and may be proven wrong about how good they are. Celtics would definitely be a really tough lift. Honestly, my general assumption all along has been that the 10.7 SRS team is going to win the title.

[Djoker]

Jokic is 1-3 (soon to be 1-4?) against teams with an SRS of 5.0 or higher. His only win came in the bubble against the Clippers.

These types of arbitrary playoff record things people bring up are pretty meaningless imo. Jokic has only played on one team with an srs above 5 himself(this year's team). Even if Denver loses to Minn they still have 3-4 years to retool and win more. Maybe even longer.

There's an average of 4 teams with an SRS of 5.0+ every year and pretty much every champion has an SRS of 5.0+. Not being able to beat a top 4 team when you are in talks for GOAT status is pretty damning.

5.0 is a prefect cutoff line. There is a huge sample size of how GOAT level players perform against teams with an SRS above and below 5.0, and there is a drastic difference between the two. Jokic is 8-1 against teams with an SRS below 5.0. Jordan is 16-0. Curry is 17-1. Kobe is 20-1. LeBron is 37-3. Thats a combined 98-6 (94.23%). We shouldn't be shocked when these GOAT level players beat non contenders in the playoffs (SRS below 5.0). They aren't challenged at that level. Those same 5 players are 38-33 (soon to be 38-34?) against teams with an SRS of 5.0+.

Former MVP's and their playoffs record against teams with an SRS of 5+

Russell: 3-1 (75.00%)
Jordan: 14-7 (66.66%)
Curry: 6-4 (60.00%)
Kobe: 13-9 (59.09%)
Magic: 7-5 (58.33%)
Shaq: 11-8 (57.89%)
Duncan: 7-8 (46.66%)
Hakeem: 6-7 (46.15%)
Kareem: 5-6 (45.45%)
Garnett: 5-6 (45.45%)
Bird: 3-4 (42.86%)
Nowitzki: 6-10 (37.50%)
Chamberlain: 4-7 (36.36%)
Durant: 4-7 (36.36%)
Malone: 6-11 (35.29%)
Westbrook: 3-6 (33.33%)
Giannis: 1-2 (33.33%)
LeBron: 4-10 (28.57%)
Nash: 4-10 (28.57%)
Moses: 2-5 (28.57%)
Barkley: 3-8 (27.27%)
Harden: 3-9 (25.00%)
Robinson: 2-6 (25.00%)
Jokic: 1-4? (20.00%)
Iverson: 0-2 (00.00%)

Obviously Jokic still has a lot of time, though. Jordan started 1-6 and followed that up with 14-1 to finish 15-7.

Good post.

5+ SRS is indeed pretty close to a perfect cut off for a good team. Of course there are always exceptions of good teams below 5 SRS and mediocre teams above 5 SRS. There is always context to be applied with supporting casts too but it's a good baseline to look at.

[rk2023]

This is a good point. And it is indeed an area where Jokic is lacking, at least at the moment.

That said, context is of course important here. These players haven’t had the same teammates or faced the same opponents. For instance, if we went through these, I think we’d find that the vast majority of wins against 5+ SRS teams that these guys have had were with a substantially better sidekick than Jamal Murray. And that’s not even mentioning the fact that 2 of Jokic’s losses to 5+ SRS teams were with Murray out.

In general, I think the way I’d put it is this: A guy who is roughly around the top 10 all time generally will almost always beat teams that are below 5 SRS. Once you get to 5+ SRS opponents, it gets a lot tougher, and even players who are that good usually need a seriously good sidekick (like, roughly all-NBA level, or at least solid all star) to win, though they may be able to occasionally do it without that (with the chances dwindling down towards essentially zero the worse you make the rest of the team). Even assuming the Nuggets lose to the Wolves (a pretty reasonable assumption at this point), I don’t think Jokic is actually particularly inconsistent with that. As you point out, he has been quite consistent at beating opponents that are below 5 SRS, so that part is checked off. Once we get above that, he’ll have gone 1-2 against 5+ SRS opponents with Murray, and 0-2 without him. Murray is not an all-NBA level player (or even a solid all-star), so I think, even with Murray, Jokic’s situation falls in the “may be able to occasionally do it” category, and then without Murray things fall in the “chances dwindling down towards essentially zero” category. Which makes the results make sense IMO.

Personally, I’ve always said that the Nuggets need Murray to play at an all-NBA level in the playoffs for me to have much confidence in them. And that’s not a criticism of Jokic, but rather an acknowledgment of the reality regarding how difficult winning a title is. Last year, they got the double-whammy of Murray playing great and the opponents not being overly strong (though I think they were clearly better than their SRS). This year, they seem to have the opposite—with Murray being genuinely bad and the opponents being quite good (even if they manage to beat the Timberwolves, there’s just going to be other heavyweights in the way).

Assuming they beat MN (which is a very steep uphill battle atp), I see them having their way with OKC; same goes for Dallas, albeit one of them is a significantly higher Regular Season SRS team.

Can’t say the same about Boston, given their 5 out offense and perimeter defenders to throw at Murray.

I personally wouldn’t be particularly confident about Denver beating OKC, but I’m pretty high on OKC and may be proven wrong about how good they are. Celtics would definitely be a really tough lift. Honestly, my general assumption all along has been that the 10.7 SRS team is going to win the title.

I see OKC’s five out posing problems for Denver’s defense, but I think their octane on O and somewhat of a reliance on turnover generation wouldn’t fare as well in altitude and against a team that generally is low turnover / low 3P variance. That said, they’re still a great team - who I have beating Dallas (though Kleber being hurt and Luka on one knee has some ramifications for my prediction).

[sp6r=underrated]

I am very curious how Jokic performs in G3. I do consider him the first GOAT caliber player since Lebron. And GOAT caliber players are held to an even higher standard than the generic HOFer.

So will we see a monster game from him in G3?

[bigboi]

Curry had a pretty deep supporting cast in 2022 even if he didn't have a clear number 2 star. They were just concentrated entirely on the defensive end so they get less credit

I mean as much as people love the narratives - nobody is winning a ring by themselves

Was the 22 supporting cast notably deep compared to other championship teams?

Well you possibly had the best perimeter defender in an era in pre-abdomen strain GP2. and he was finishing at the rim like peak DeAndre Jordan, and shooting well from 3.... And again he got 7th man minutes. So yeah I would say so. I mean Curry was pretty excellent in the year before in 2021 and they couldn't even get a playoff bid. Teammates matter, a lot.

As far as it relates to Denver's performance right now, Minnesota clearly has something special going. They don't particularly remind me of too many teams, but it's hard to exaggerate how well they are playing, They had a -7 defense in the RS, their defense has been every bit as good and now the offense is high level led BY Edwards and Towns. The only big that ranked higher than KAT's best RS offensive impact metrics going back years, is Jokic, That's an ATG team.

GP2 the best perimeter defender of an era?
Minnesota ATG team?

Do you actually say these opinions out loud? Because you’d get laugh out of any room. None of the things you said make any sense. And no, the warriors were not better as teammates than nuggets this year. Steph was just flat out a better player than Jokic is today.

[bigboi]

Yall really sat here and told me, Jokic doesn’t even have to try and he’s easily the best offensive player ever and best player than Bron. You put Jokic in 90s/2000s and there’s 0 chance he’s considered best big man

[Special_Puppy]

I mean as much as people love the narratives - nobody is winning a ring by themselves

Was the 22 supporting cast notably deep compared to other championship teams?

Well you possibly had the best perimeter defender in an era in pre-abdomen strain GP2. and he was finishing at the rim like peak DeAndre Jordan, and shooting well from 3.... And again he got 7th man minutes. So yeah I would say so. I mean Curry was pretty excellent in the year before in 2021 and they couldn't even get a playoff bid. Teammates matter, a lot.

As far as it relates to Denver's performance right now, Minnesota clearly has something special going. They don't particularly remind me of too many teams, but it's hard to exaggerate how well they are playing, They had a -7 defense in the RS, their defense has been every bit as good and now the offense is high level led BY Edwards and Towns. The only big that ranked higher than KAT's best RS offensive impact metrics going back years, is Jokic, That's an ATG team.

GP2 the best perimeter defender of an era?
Minnesota ATG team?

Do you actually say these opinions out loud? Because you’d get laugh out of any room. None of the things you said make any sense. And no, the warriors were not better as teammates than nuggets this year. Steph was just flat out a better player than Jokic is today.

If you don't think that Steph's supporting cast in 2022 was better than Jokic's supporting cast in 2024 (especially considering the fact that Murray is a complete shell of himself right now) then you really aren't worth further engaging with.

[parsnips33]

Really was not aware 22 Dubs were regarded as such a stacked team

The good thing is it shouldn't be hard for the Nuggets to go out and trade for Poole and Wiggins and finally give Jokic enough help

[Special_Puppy]

Really was not aware 22 Dubs were regarded as such a stacked team

The good thing is it shouldn't be hard for the Nuggets to go out and trade for Poole and Wiggins and finally give Jokic enough help

It was a weird team in that they had a ton of role players who had career years. Have come to appreciate them more as time as gone by