I don't like how he gets put ahead of players that were just as great on defense as they were on offense but he's amazing though.
Yeah, it's extremely tough to compare at that point. Especially when you consider that very different defensive skillsets were necessary in different eras. Jokic's lack of defense compared to most other great centers is a huge strike against him.
It's far too early to be talking about all-time rankings. Don't microwave that shyt. Let it happen organically.
However, offense/defense isn't a 50/50 thing; it's fluid. There's no definitive marker for either end. It's entirely dependent on the player, themselves, and how they impact the game. I mean, everyone has now come to the realization that Jokic is better than Embiid, right? But how can that be if you're using this scale of offense
and defense as of equal value?
It's purely because of the impact Jokic has on the game.
It's no different to Shaq in the early 2000s and he wasn't even remotely close to one of the best defensive big men during that time, but he was still the best big man in the game, comprehensively. Nobody was fukking with him. His lack of defense wasn't a strike against him was it?
We just saw Jokic go up against arguably the best defensive big man in AD, and who had more impact during that series and proved to be the better player?
Exactly.
Furthermore, just because someone might be a better defender doesn't necessarily mean their impact on that end is of greater value or importance either. We just saw Tatum drop a 50-piece in Game 7 of the Celtics/Philly series primarily targeting Embiid on switches (he scored 10-13 field goals on him). Now, if Embiid is this great defensive player, why was he not only targeted by the Celtics, but his lack of defense was the main reason why Philly lost that game which ended their season?
