CoolBreeze44 wrote:Averaging over 31 points while being a perennial All NBA defense selection. Nobody can boast anything close to that. He's also leading the team with the best record in the league. Giannis.
It's very impressive. But he's taking 6 more FGA/game than Joker plus 6 more FTA/game. Joker has been more efficient and that is reflected in the advanced stats.
You have a good point on the defense which does warrant additional consideration. But IMHO, I think it's still Joker.
Giannis plays less minutes and draws so much attention on his drives. You can't go wrong with either obviously, I hope they get to play against each other in the finals. That would solve the debate.
The nuggets are 27.6 pts better per 100 with him on then off. That is nuts.
I like Giannis more but the finals argument is invalid to me when the Bucks arguably would have 4 of the best 5 players in that series
I guess I can agree Joker has more value to his team. But IMO Giannis is the better player. I think he's the best player in the world.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:Averaging over 31 points while being a perennial All NBA defense selection. Nobody can boast anything close to that. He's also leading the team with the best record in the league. Giannis.
It's very impressive. But he's taking 6 more FGA/game than Joker plus 6 more FTA/game. Joker has been more efficient and that is reflected in the advanced stats.
You have a good point on the defense which does warrant additional consideration. But IMHO, I think it's still Joker.
Giannis plays less minutes and draws so much attention on his drives. You can't go wrong with either obviously, I hope they get to play against each other in the finals. That would solve the debate.
The nuggets are 27.6 pts better per 100 with him on then off. That is nuts.
I like Giannis more but the finals argument is invalid to me when the Bucks arguably would have 4 of the best 5 players in that series
I guess I can agree Joker has more value to his team. But IMO Giannis is the better player. I think he's the best player in the world.
Jokic is the best player in the world, and I don't think there is an argument against it.
Great debate. I think it's a really close call between Jokic and Giannis with Embiid and Tatum battling for the 2 and 3 spots on the MVP short list. If it were just offense, then Jokic would definitely get the nod. But it gets close when you factor in the defensive prowess of Giannis.
Sundog60 wrote:If I was putting a team together from scratch, I'd start with Giannis.
So would I.
Why Giannis over Jokic?
With Jokic you are filling the center and the pg playmaking position. He can shoot. Giannis still can't. You can't defend seriously in today's NBA without being called for a foul so I don't equate Giannis' ability there to put him over the top of Jokic, who should get 3 straight MVPs. Jokic isn't a bad defender either. People just need to create a narrative. That is how ridiculously good he is.
Sundog60 wrote:If I was putting a team together from scratch, I'd start with Giannis.
So would I.
Why Giannis over Jokic?
With Jokic you are filling the center and the pg playmaking position. He can shoot. Giannis still can't. You can't defend seriously in today's NBA without being called for a foul so I don't equate Giannis' ability there to put him over the top of Jokic, who should get 3 straight MVPs. Jokic isn't a bad defender either. People just need to create a narrative. That is how ridiculously good he is.
No one is saying Jokic isn't great. But Giannis averages 9 points more per game and is a MUCH better defender. It's a good debate without a wrong answer.
Sundog60 wrote:If I was putting a team together from scratch, I'd start with Giannis.
So would I.
Why Giannis over Jokic?
With Jokic you are filling the center and the pg playmaking position. He can shoot. Giannis still can't. You can't defend seriously in today's NBA without being called for a foul so I don't equate Giannis' ability there to put him over the top of Jokic, who should get 3 straight MVPs. Jokic isn't a bad defender either. People just need to create a narrative. That is how ridiculously good he is.
No one is saying Jokic isn't great. But Giannis averages 9 points more per game and is a MUCH better defender. It's a good debate without a wrong answer.
Cool gave my answer. I love both players and would be happy to start a franchise with either one. But if forced to choose, I'd take Giannis in a fairly close call. In my mind it's Giannis and Jokic on a tier by themselves. Embiid isn't far behind, but I put him on a slightly lower tier.
Sundog60 wrote:If I was putting a team together from scratch, I'd start with Giannis.
So would I.
Why Giannis over Jokic?
With Jokic you are filling the center and the pg playmaking position. He can shoot. Giannis still can't. You can't defend seriously in today's NBA without being called for a foul so I don't equate Giannis' ability there to put him over the top of Jokic, who should get 3 straight MVPs. Jokic isn't a bad defender either. People just need to create a narrative. That is how ridiculously good he is.
No one is saying Jokic isn't great. But Giannis averages 9 points more per game and is a MUCH better defender. It's a good debate without a wrong answer.
Cool gave my answer. I love both players and would be happy to start a franchise with either one. But if forced to choose, I'd take Giannis in a fairly close call. In my mind it's Giannis and Jokic on a tier by themselves. Embiid isn't far behind, but I put him on a slightly lower tier.
