How many more years for Jokic to be in top 10 contention for you?

[Fundamentals21]

He's more on par with Oscar/Magic/Bird than LeBron IMO. I can see his career having a top 10 case if he keeps putting up strong seasons into his 30's.

[Jaqua92]

I think he still needs 2 more long dominant playoff runs to be in that conversation. Currently he really only has one elite run (maybe one of the 10-15 best ever granted), I think everyone in that top 10 range has at least a handful of them.

To be fair, he's been the best player in the last 3 playoffs. We just didn't pay attention. He's averaging like 27/12/7 for his playoff career.

Since becoming MVP, he's averaging 31/12/7 or something like that. With a 30/11/10 playoff average last year, and a peak playoff series of 35/13/10 on 66TS% He's low key amongst the GOAT playoff performers.


As for the thread? He's a top 7 all time peak for me.

An MVP this year gives him a 4 year peak of MVP, MVP, FMVP and MVP. He's one of 8 players ever to win 3 MVPs and a ring already.

One more ring for Jokic, and being the clear best player in the world for another 3-5 seasons does it for me imo

[Ambrose]

Depends on how this year plays out. If he wins the title again in dominant fashion, then he's probably only a year or two away. If he puts up three more seasons like these last four, he should be good.

[pancakes3]

How many more seasons is he going to play? He's got 3 years after this season left on his contract, where he'll be 32 and have $350M in career earnings. Is he going to sign on for another 4 seasons or is he going to call it quits?

[RCM88x]

I think he still needs 2 more long dominant playoff runs to be in that conversation. Currently he really only has one elite run (maybe one of the 10-15 best ever granted), I think everyone in that top 10 range has at least a handful of them.

To be fair, he's been the best player in the last 3 playoffs. We just didn't pay attention. He's averaging like 27/12/7 for his playoff career.

Since becoming MVP, he's averaging 31/12/7 or something like that. With a 30/11/10 playoff average last year, and a peak playoff series of 35/13/10 on 66TS% He's low key amongst the GOAT playoff performers.


As for the thread? He's a top 7 all time peak for me.

An MVP this year gives him a 4 year peak of MVP, MVP, FMVP and MVP. He's one of 8 players ever to win 3 MVPs and a ring already.

One more ring for Jokic, and being the clear best player in the world for another 3-5 seasons does it for me imo

He only played 10 and 5 games in the two playoffs prior to his most recent ones, I don't think that was enough to really even qualify for the discussion. Besides, even so Curry and Giannis were both great in those years.

I don't think slash line averages are really as valuable today in comparing players considering how much more data we have available on these guys. Besides, comparing slash lines across eras is not apples to apples anyway.

[OhayoKD]

I think he still needs 2 more long dominant playoff runs to be in that conversation. Currently he really only has one elite run (maybe one of the 10-15 best ever granted), I think everyone in that top 10 range has at least a handful of them.

To be fair, he's been the best player in the last 3 playoffs. We just didn't pay attention. He's averaging like 27/12/7 for his playoff career.

Since becoming MVP, he's averaging 31/12/7 or something like that. With a 30/11/10 playoff average last year, and a peak playoff series of 35/13/10 on 66TS% He's low key amongst the GOAT playoff performers.


As for the thread? He's a top 7 all time peak for me.

An MVP this year gives him a 4 year peak of MVP, MVP, FMVP and MVP. He's one of 8 players ever to win 3 MVPs and a ring already.

One more ring for Jokic, and being the clear best player in the world for another 3-5 seasons does it for me imo

He only played 10 and 5 games in the two playoffs prior to his most recent ones, I don't think that was enough to really even qualify for the discussion. Besides, even so Curry and Giannis were both great in those years.

I don't think slash line averages are really as valuable today in comparing players considering how much more data we have available on these guys. Besides, comparing slash lines across eras is not apples to apples anyway.

There's no bbr stat for Jokic's limited rim-protectoin and ball-handling and therefore don't matter. Just like results, his impact on said results, and his teammates playoff translation also doesn't matter. If you pretend his weaknesses don't exist, he has no weaknesses. Truly a heir for MJ

[lessthanjake]

I think he still needs 2 more long dominant playoff runs to be in that conversation. Currently he really only has one elite run (maybe one of the 10-15 best ever granted), I think everyone in that top 10 range has at least a handful of them.

I generally agree with your sentiment (which is pretty consistent with my answer to this thread), but just as an aside, is it actually the case that everyone in the top 10 range has a handful of long dominant playoff runs?

There’s certainly a bunch that I think we can say did have 3 or more long dominant playoff runs. But, just taking a look at the top 10 in the top 100 project, did Kevin Garnett or Wilt Chamberlain have 3+ long dominant playoff runs? Wilt only made the Finals in his prime twice. He then made or won the FInals four times on the Lakers, but he was a minimal scorer at that point. So maybe he qualifies depending on whether you think Wilt’s defense on the Lakers was dominant. What about Garnett? He only made the Finals twice, so I’m not sure he even has 3 or more playoff runs that we’d define as “long” for these purposes. And one of the times his team made the Finals, he put up a 15.0/7.4/2.5 playoff stat line (and FWIW with a playoff negative on-off too, so there’s not some impact case hidden there). I don’t think Garnett qualifies.

[lessthanjake]

To be fair, he's been the best player in the last 3 playoffs. We just didn't pay attention. He's averaging like 27/12/7 for his playoff career.

Since becoming MVP, he's averaging 31/12/7 or something like that. With a 30/11/10 playoff average last year, and a peak playoff series of 35/13/10 on 66TS% He's low key amongst the GOAT playoff performers.


As for the thread? He's a top 7 all time peak for me.

An MVP this year gives him a 4 year peak of MVP, MVP, FMVP and MVP. He's one of 8 players ever to win 3 MVPs and a ring already.

One more ring for Jokic, and being the clear best player in the world for another 3-5 seasons does it for me imo

He only played 10 and 5 games in the two playoffs prior to his most recent ones, I don't think that was enough to really even qualify for the discussion. Besides, even so Curry and Giannis were both great in those years.

I don't think slash line averages are really as valuable today in comparing players considering how much more data we have available on these guys. Besides, comparing slash lines across eras is not apples to apples anyway.

There's no bbr stat for Jokic's limited rim-protectoin and ball-handling and therefore don't matter. Just like results, his impact on said results, and his teammates playoff translation also doesn't matter. If you pretend his weaknesses don't exist, he has no weaknesses. Truly a heir for MJ

I’m not sure why you keep focusing in various threads on Jokic’s ball handling. He’s a center. And he’s able to generate elite offense as the hub of the offense. He’s got the most touches in the league this season. Ball-handling ability obviously isn’t some deficiency that prevents him from being massively involved in the offense. Nor, of course, does it prevent Jokic from generating elite offense. Furthermore, Jokic actually is a good ball-handler! He runs the fast break, he is rarely dispossessed when he’s backing people down in the post (and it’s very difficult to ensure ball security in that situation), and he’s rarely dispossessed when he drives (which is not his main move, but happens off cuts and off pump fakes on jump shots). He has strategies that generally produce better offense for him than if his go-to move was driving at the hoop like a Luka, Harden, or LeBron. But that doesn’t mean he’s a bad ball-handler. Indeed, I’d direct you to the February 18 episode of the Thinking Basketball podcast, where Ben specifically notes that Jokic is an absolute outlier compared to big men in terms of ball-handling turnovers, with numbers that look like a guard’s numbers. Granted, I don’t totally love all of Ben Taylor’s metrics, but this does go to something that I think is affirmed by the eye test too—which is that Jokic is very hard to dispossess when he’s got the ball. Jokic is a big man, so he’s not relying primarily on ball-handling-heavy strategies, but he is able to generate elite offense with other strategies and he’s a very good ball-handler when he does utilize it. So I just don’t see the problem here. I may be wrong, but I feel like you perhaps have a mold of player that you have decided is the best, and therefore if someone’s style of play departs from that, you see that departure as evidence of inferiority. That’s ultimately a tautological thought process, though, because it logically doesn’t allow for any mold of player to be better than the mold of player you’ve decided is the best.

[Peregrine01]

On the topic of ball-handling: Jokic is so ridiculously good at leading a break without having to take any dribbles. If he's pressured even a little he gets rid of the ball so fast creating an even bigger advantage for his teammates. That he doesn't pound the rock into oblivion isn't a detracting point.

[RCM88x]

I think he still needs 2 more long dominant playoff runs to be in that conversation. Currently he really only has one elite run (maybe one of the 10-15 best ever granted), I think everyone in that top 10 range has at least a handful of them.

I generally agree with your sentiment (which is pretty consistent with my answer to this thread), but just as an aside, is it actually the case that everyone in the top 10 range has a handful of long dominant playoff runs?

There’s certainly a bunch that I think we can say did have 3 or more long dominant playoff runs. But, just taking a look at the top 10 in the top 100 project, did Kevin Garnett or Wilt Chamberlain have 3+ long dominant playoff runs? Wilt only made the Finals in his prime twice. He then made or won the FInals four times on the Lakers, but he was a minimal scorer at that point. So maybe he qualifies depending on whether you think Wilt’s defense on the Lakers was dominant. What about Garnett? He only made the Finals twice, so I’m not sure he even has 3 or more playoff runs that we’d define as “long” for these purposes. And one of the times his team made the Finals, he put up a 15.0/7.4/2.5 playoff stat line (and FWIW with a playoff negative on-off too, so there’s not some impact case hidden there). I don’t think Garnett qualifies.

Wilt the standards are a bit different due to the era, I'd place more weight on the RS there. Even so he has a couple very good ones.

I personally wouldn't put KG in my top 10 so I think the point is a little moot there. That being said he probably has 2 elite ones. Jokic probably passes that bar with a CF run this season if he hasn't already.

[OhayoKD]

There's no bbr stat for Jokic's limited rim-protectoin and ball-handling and therefore don't matter. Just like results, his impact on said results, and his teammates playoff translation also doesn't matter. If you pretend his weaknesses don't exist, he has no weaknesses. Truly a heir for MJ

I’m not sure why you keep focusing in various threads on Jokic’s ball handling. He’s a center.

And? centers typically carry defenses. Jokic is not in a top-10 conversation because he's a center, he's in a top 10 conversation because of his ability to generate offensive value and for him to viably be a goat-level playoff performer, he needs to generate the most offensive value ever, not simply

generate elite offense as the hub of the offense.

Crazy, I know.

Ball-handling ability obviously isn’t some deficiency that prevents him from being massively involved in the offense

It is a deficiency relative to goat-tier offensive players, yes.

I may be wrong, but I feel like you perhaps have a mold of player that you have decided is the best, and therefore if someone’s style of play departs from that, you see that departure as evidence of inferiority.[/quote]
Being worse at something is not a style of play, it is being worse at something.

The person whose assessment of Jokic is tied to a preferred player mold is you:

And beyond that, he does also have a box score data case too. And, for me, both of those things just validate the fact that my eye test tells me he’s the best player I’ve ever seen.

The results have never supported Jokic as a goat-level player at any point in his career. Your case hinges on a theoretically superior process, not mine.

Of course the basis for this theory is mostly aesthetic preference:

On the topic of ball-handling: Jokic is so ridiculously good at leading a break without having to take any dribbles. If he's pressured even a little he gets rid of the ball so fast creating an even bigger advantage for his teammates. That he doesn't pound the rock into oblivion isn't a detracting point.

I haven't seen a goat-level offense from Jokic not "pounding the ball into oblivion". Maybe we should wait for him to produce one instead of conjuring caricatures.

[lessthanjake]

It is a deficiency relative to goat-tier offensive players, yes.

That’s only the case if you define “goat-tier offensive players” to not include any offensively dominant big men, such as Kareem or Shaq. Jokic is certainly a better ball-handler than both of those.

But, in any event, it also just doesn’t really matter. Even if we define the other “goat-tier offensive players” to only include the top offensive non-big-men (which is potentially right), the same size that makes Jokic inherently not quite as good a ball handler as those players also gives him other inherent advantages that are a huge part of his offensive game, including size, strength, etc. If we think the other “goat-tier offensive players” only include non-big-men (as we must for your above statement to be true), then Jokic’s size and strength is a massive offensive advantage over those guys that we’re comparing him to. And since he utilizes that size and strength incredibly well offensively (among other things, in terms of unstoppably backing players down in the post, getting lots of offensive rebounds, having unique passing angles, being a great screener, an unstoppably high release point on his shot, etc.) and his ball-handling is still very effective anyways, that’s a trade off I’d definitely take. And, of course, that’s not even getting into the other offensive areas unrelated to his size, in which he’s unequivocally better than any other “goat-tier offensive player”—such as his touch within floater range (which is a huge part of what makes him so amazing offensively).

The fact that he has a unique offensive package with a combination of strengths we’ve never seen before does not make it less good than the offensive package of players with other more common archetypes. And it’s just odd to zero in on one specific thing (ball handling) that really is not actually an issue for Jokic at all. His ball handling allows him to play his game with minimal ball-handling turnovers, despite doing things that are prone to those types of turnovers (running the break, backing people down in the post, etc.). It’s not a meaningful issue for him. And you’re not even identifying any genuine issue caused by his ball-handling. Your complaint seems to basically just be that he’s not a classic heliocentric ball-dominant ball-handler. That’s an archetype that can lead to great offense! But Jokic is a different type of player, and what he does also leads to great offense. More generally, you also seem to be stuck in this idea that a big man cannot be a goat-level offensive player, because typically big men are less impactful on offense and more impactful on defense. Jokic doesn’t fit that mold, but that’s because he has certain skills we have never seen before in a big man. I think you need to step out of a very rigid way of thinking about basketball and realize that a player with a really unique skill set can and will be effective in ways that people in the past haven’t been before.

Also, the idea that we “haven't seen a goat-level offense from Jokic” and that I’m merely talking about some “theoretically superior process” is a bit odd when we realize that, as per basketball-reference data, no team in the history of the NBA has scored as many points per 100 possessions with their star player on the floor as the Nuggets did last year with Jokic on the floor (despite not really having overwhelming offensive talent around him). Obviously, the league’s recent offensive explosion is a major factor, but I’m not sure how we could say we haven’t seen a goat-level offense from Jokic when no team in NBA history has ever had as efficient an offense with their star player on the floor as the Nuggets with Jokic on the floor last season. Could we make an argument that the GOAT offense was actually a high-scoring team in a different league context (such as the 2005 Suns with Nash on)? Sure. But dismissing Jokic on the basis that we “haven’t seen a goat-level offense” from him is odd, given the facts.

[RealSHAQ]

Nikola Jokić is already:
- NBA's greatest passing big man
- his basketball IQ, elite playmaking and efficient/versatile scoring make him the most skilled offensive center we've ever seen
- in terms of greatness, a top 6 center of all time, already surpassing the likes of BIll Walton, Ewing, David Robinson and Moses Malone. Top 7 if you include Tim Duncan as a center.
- a top 20 NBA player of all time, but Jokić will naturally get closer to the all-time top 10 with multiple rings, MVPs and FMVPs.

[SportsGuru08]

Two rings puts him in Top 15. Three and we're in Top 10 discussions.

[dygaction]

One more ring over Dream, two more over Shaq, three more best ever big man.

[giordunk]

Curry has 4 rings and he's kind of at that fringe top 10 contention. Jokic probably needs at least 2 more rings or like 6 finals appearances losses to get there.

[uberhikari]

The only thing that can push Jokic higher for me is championships. He can be a fringe top 10 guy in the 9-12 range, but he can't climb higher without at least 2 more rings. And if he really is in contention for GOAT peak, having the GOAT peak with only 1 ring might start to hurt him.

[Jaqua92]

He only played 10 and 5 games in the two playoffs prior to his most recent ones, I don't think that was enough to really even qualify for the discussion. Besides, even so Curry and Giannis were both great in those years.

I don't think slash line averages are really as valuable today in comparing players considering how much more data we have available on these guys. Besides, comparing slash lines across eras is not apples to apples anyway.

There's no bbr stat for Jokic's limited rim-protectoin and ball-handling and therefore don't matter. Just like results, his impact on said results, and his teammates playoff translation also doesn't matter. If you pretend his weaknesses don't exist, he has no weaknesses. Truly a heir for MJ

I’m not sure why you keep focusing in various threads on Jokic’s ball handling. He’s a center. And he’s able to generate elite offense as the hub of the offense. He’s got the most touches in the league this season. Ball-handling ability obviously isn’t some deficiency that prevents him from being massively involved in the offense. Nor, of course, does it prevent Jokic from generating elite offense. Furthermore, Jokic actually is a good ball-handler! He runs the fast break, he is rarely dispossessed when he’s backing people down in the post (and it’s very difficult to ensure ball security in that situation), and he’s rarely dispossessed when he drives (which is not his main move, but happens off cuts and off pump fakes on jump shots). He has strategies that generally produce better offense for him than if his go-to move was driving at the hoop like a Luka, Harden, or LeBron. But that doesn’t mean he’s a bad ball-handler. Indeed, I’d direct you to the February 18 episode of the Thinking Basketball podcast, where Ben specifically notes that Jokic is an absolute outlier compared to big men in terms of ball-handling turnovers, with numbers that look like a guard’s numbers. Granted, I don’t totally love all of Ben Taylor’s metrics, but this does go to something that I think is affirmed by the eye test too—which is that Jokic is very hard to dispossess when he’s got the ball. Jokic is a big man, so he’s not relying primarily on ball-handling-heavy strategies, but he is able to generate elite offense with other strategies and he’s a very good ball-handler when he does utilize it. So I just don’t see the problem here. I may be wrong, but I feel like you perhaps have a mold of player that you have decided is the best, and therefore if someone’s style of play departs from that, you see that departure as evidence of inferiority. That’s ultimately a tautological thought process, though, because it logically doesn’t allow for any mold of player to be better than the mold of player you’ve decided is the best.

You nailed it. He pops up in every single MJ and Jokic thread spewing this nonsense. He just oozes confirmation bias with biases against MJ and Jokic.

[OhayoKD]

There's no bbr stat for Jokic's limited rim-protectoin and ball-handling and therefore don't matter. Just like results, his impact on said results, and his teammates playoff translation also doesn't matter. If you pretend his weaknesses don't exist, he has no weaknesses. Truly a heir for MJ

I’m not sure why you keep focusing in various threads on Jokic’s ball handling. He’s a center. And he’s able to generate elite offense as the hub of the offense. He’s got the most touches in the league this season. Ball-handling ability obviously isn’t some deficiency that prevents him from being massively involved in the offense. Nor, of course, does it prevent Jokic from generating elite offense. Furthermore, Jokic actually is a good ball-handler! He runs the fast break, he is rarely dispossessed when he’s backing people down in the post (and it’s very difficult to ensure ball security in that situation), and he’s rarely dispossessed when he drives (which is not his main move, but happens off cuts and off pump fakes on jump shots). He has strategies that generally produce better offense for him than if his go-to move was driving at the hoop like a Luka, Harden, or LeBron. But that doesn’t mean he’s a bad ball-handler. Indeed, I’d direct you to the February 18 episode of the Thinking Basketball podcast, where Ben specifically notes that Jokic is an absolute outlier compared to big men in terms of ball-handling turnovers, with numbers that look like a guard’s numbers. Granted, I don’t totally love all of Ben Taylor’s metrics, but this does go to something that I think is affirmed by the eye test too—which is that Jokic is very hard to dispossess when he’s got the ball. Jokic is a big man, so he’s not relying primarily on ball-handling-heavy strategies, but he is able to generate elite offense with other strategies and he’s a very good ball-handler when he does utilize it. So I just don’t see the problem here. I may be wrong, but I feel like you perhaps have a mold of player that you have decided is the best, and therefore if someone’s style of play departs from that, you see that departure as evidence of inferiority. That’s ultimately a tautological thought process, though, because it logically doesn’t allow for any mold of player to be better than the mold of player you’ve decided is the best.

You nailed it. He pops up in every single MJ and Jokic thread spewing this nonsense. He just oozes confirmation bias with biases against MJ and Jokic.

Confirmation bias...like vaguely alluding to what I do "every thread" to cover for a youtuber bringing up nonsense isolation numbers because they look good for a player you like defending?
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=111949673#p111949673

Anyone who reads "not bad" as a meaningful defense of an alleged goat is clearly practicing confirmation bias. If that person than proceeds to undead a week old thread to say it's the other party doing the bias confirming, then that aforementioned someone is also practicing "projection".

Why does ball-handling matter? Let's ask Iverson, Magic, and Stockton:

Spoiler:

If we look to the tape:

Watch on YouTube

Assist 1: creates an open jumper by drawing a double and then makes a 3rd defender linger with a on-time and on point cross-court jump-pass. 2 defenders taken out completely, and a third hindered. I'd grade that as a good or borderline great creation.

Assist 2: Transition, draws and manipulates one defender to make a layup lane for his teammate. Really more captializing on a good oppurtinity then generating one, so i'll just say this is decent

Assist 3: Completely takes 2 defenders out of the play by dribbling around them(notable how frantically they double), sets up a semi-contested look, I'd say it's good creation. Maybe he could have made a wide-open look by passing it when he gets the ball instead of dribbling.

Assist 4: Takes out one defender by dribbling, another with his pass, and also freezes Shaq with his eyes allowing for his teammate to take a step for a higher quality look(though he was set-up for a open jumper). Great creation imo. Just excellent playmaking, with Iverson's combination of manipulation, ball-handling, and passing all combining to almost singlehandedly nuetralize the defense.

Assist 5: Iverson knifes through LA and takes out [b]3 defenders to set up hill with a semi-open jumper. [/b]I'd grade that as a great creation too though based on the shot I can see the argument for good(maybe he could have passed it a beat earlier?)

Assist 6: Iverson recovers from nearly losing the ball and takes out 1 defender with a pass while also getting Kobe out of position. Scorer still has to do alot of work after so I'm just calling it decent.

Overall, Per-assist Iverson is taking out nearly 2 defenders completely and his passes are generally accurate and well-timed with a combination of scoring gravity, handles, and manipulation turning good passing into great creation.

Contrast with:

By my count(stopped my tracking at 5:35 for those who want to vet), of Stockton's first 10 assists:
4 saw him take out multiple defenders out of a play
1 resulted in a wide-open shot

Of Magic's first 10 assists:

6 saw him take out multiple defenders
4 resulted in wide open looks


Just like with Nash(near the top of page), checking the tape shows us that Magic's assists create more than Stockton's do. Magic is drawing extra defenders and creating openings as a ball-handler in a way Stockton just doesn't.

And on that note, while this specific watch was centered around assists, Magic was clearly dealing with more defenders on his scores than Stockton was and, all else being equal; scoring in plays where you are dealing with multiple defenders is harder to replace and less teammate-dependent than scoring in plays in single coverage(or wide open).

TLDR:
-> Better ball-handlers draw more defensive attention.
-> Better ball-handlers take out more opposing defenders before a shot attempt


If you have to caveat jokic's handling with "for a center" or praise him for being "not bad", then ball-handling is a weakness, just as defending low paint-protection load with "for a guard" would single protecting the paint as a weakness.

Refusing to acknowledge Jokic's weaknesses as weaknesses is a key step in "not allowing any mold to be better than the mold of player you've decided is the best".

Of course if you think defense and ball-handling are not meaningful because PER and it's cousins said so, there's a more effective means of proving this than misusing English("confirmation bias"): show the results.

More specifically, show the results that indicate Jokic is an outlier on offense and comparable to the very best ever at impacting winning.

When you or ltj or peregrine answer that bell, "confirmation bias" becomes a viable talking point, as opposed to you just yapping because your conception of winning basketball has little to no basis in reality.

[lessthanjake]

I’m not sure why you keep focusing in various threads on Jokic’s ball handling. He’s a center. And he’s able to generate elite offense as the hub of the offense. He’s got the most touches in the league this season. Ball-handling ability obviously isn’t some deficiency that prevents him from being massively involved in the offense. Nor, of course, does it prevent Jokic from generating elite offense. Furthermore, Jokic actually is a good ball-handler! He runs the fast break, he is rarely dispossessed when he’s backing people down in the post (and it’s very difficult to ensure ball security in that situation), and he’s rarely dispossessed when he drives (which is not his main move, but happens off cuts and off pump fakes on jump shots). He has strategies that generally produce better offense for him than if his go-to move was driving at the hoop like a Luka, Harden, or LeBron. But that doesn’t mean he’s a bad ball-handler. Indeed, I’d direct you to the February 18 episode of the Thinking Basketball podcast, where Ben specifically notes that Jokic is an absolute outlier compared to big men in terms of ball-handling turnovers, with numbers that look like a guard’s numbers. Granted, I don’t totally love all of Ben Taylor’s metrics, but this does go to something that I think is affirmed by the eye test too—which is that Jokic is very hard to dispossess when he’s got the ball. Jokic is a big man, so he’s not relying primarily on ball-handling-heavy strategies, but he is able to generate elite offense with other strategies and he’s a very good ball-handler when he does utilize it. So I just don’t see the problem here. I may be wrong, but I feel like you perhaps have a mold of player that you have decided is the best, and therefore if someone’s style of play departs from that, you see that departure as evidence of inferiority. That’s ultimately a tautological thought process, though, because it logically doesn’t allow for any mold of player to be better than the mold of player you’ve decided is the best.

You nailed it. He pops up in every single MJ and Jokic thread spewing this nonsense. He just oozes confirmation bias with biases against MJ and Jokic.

Confirmation bias...like vaguely alluding to what I do "every thread" to cover for a youtuber bringing up nonsense isolation numbers because they look good for a player you like defending?
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=111949673#p111949673

Anyone who reads "not bad" as a meaningful defense of an alleged goat is clearly practicing confirmation bias. If that person than proceeds to undead a week old thread to say it's the other party doing the bias confirming, then that aforementioned someone is also practicing "projection".

Why does ball-handling matter? Let's ask Iverson, Magic, and Stockton:

Spoiler:

If we look to the tape:

Watch on YouTube

Assist 1: creates an open jumper by drawing a double and then makes a 3rd defender linger with a on-time and on point cross-court jump-pass. 2 defenders taken out completely, and a third hindered. I'd grade that as a good or borderline great creation.

Assist 2: Transition, draws and manipulates one defender to make a layup lane for his teammate. Really more captializing on a good oppurtinity then generating one, so i'll just say this is decent

Assist 3: Completely takes 2 defenders out of the play by dribbling around them(notable how frantically they double), sets up a semi-contested look, I'd say it's good creation. Maybe he could have made a wide-open look by passing it when he gets the ball instead of dribbling.

Assist 4: Takes out one defender by dribbling, another with his pass, and also freezes Shaq with his eyes allowing for his teammate to take a step for a higher quality look(though he was set-up for a open jumper). Great creation imo. Just excellent playmaking, with Iverson's combination of manipulation, ball-handling, and passing all combining to almost singlehandedly nuetralize the defense.

Assist 5: Iverson knifes through LA and takes out [b]3 defenders to set up hill with a semi-open jumper. [/b]I'd grade that as a great creation too though based on the shot I can see the argument for good(maybe he could have passed it a beat earlier?)

Assist 6: Iverson recovers from nearly losing the ball and takes out 1 defender with a pass while also getting Kobe out of position. Scorer still has to do alot of work after so I'm just calling it decent.

Overall, Per-assist Iverson is taking out nearly 2 defenders completely and his passes are generally accurate and well-timed with a combination of scoring gravity, handles, and manipulation turning good passing into great creation.

Contrast with:

By my count(stopped my tracking at 5:35 for those who want to vet), of Stockton's first 10 assists:
4 saw him take out multiple defenders out of a play
1 resulted in a wide-open shot

Of Magic's first 10 assists:

6 saw him take out multiple defenders
4 resulted in wide open looks


Just like with Nash(near the top of page), checking the tape shows us that Magic's assists create more than Stockton's do. Magic is drawing extra defenders and creating openings as a ball-handler in a way Stockton just doesn't.

And on that note, while this specific watch was centered around assists, Magic was clearly dealing with more defenders on his scores than Stockton was and, all else being equal; scoring in plays where you are dealing with multiple defenders is harder to replace and less teammate-dependent than scoring in plays in single coverage(or wide open).

TLDR:
-> Better ball-handlers draw more defensive attention.
-> Better ball-handlers take out more opposing defenders before a shot attempt


If you have to caveat jokic's handling with "for a center" or praise him for being "not bad", then ball-handling is a weakness, just as defending low paint-protection load with "for a guard" would single protecting the paint as a weakness.

Refusing to acknowledge Jokic's weaknesses as weaknesses is a key step in "not allowing any mold to be better than the mold of player you've decided is the best".

Of course if you think defense and ball-handling are not meaningful because PER and it's cousins said so, there's a more effective means of proving this than misusing English("confirmation bias"): show the results.

More specifically, show the results that indicate Jokic is an outlier on offense and comparable to the very best ever at impacting winning.

When you or ltj or peregrine answer that bell, "confirmation bias" becomes a viable talking point, as opposed to you just yapping because your conception of winning basketball has little to no basis in reality.

I already addressed the vast majority of this just a few posts above in this thread, so I won’t repeat any of that and would just direct others to read my prior post in tandem with yours and see what they think.

But one thing I want to add is that I actually disagree with the notion that adding a “for a center” caveat means it is bad. Because, you see, every team has a center, and centers usually cannot handle the ball much. So if you have a player who is a fantastic ball-handler “for a center,” your team will very likely have more ball-handling skill on the court at once than if you had a player that was an equally good ball-handler but at a different position. This has really important benefits, because it means you can leverage things that a team with an equally good ball-handler at a different position could not. For example, having your center be a great ball-handler that can run the fast break is often a major benefit to transition offense, because it means the guy who rebounds the ball the most can immediately run the break. If you have an equally good ball-handler at a different position, that is less common. It also means that your center that spreads the floor is also a threat to drive to the basket off a pump fake. Adding another player that is a real threat to put the ball on the court after receiving a pass puts significant additional pressure on the defense. I could go on.

Basically, the fact that Jokic has the ball-handling of a guard while being a center is actually a genuinely bigger boost to his team than having a guard (or forward) with that ball-handling, because the counterfactual isn’t the same. The typical center can’t handle the ball, while the typical guard can, so a great ball-handling center is a bigger delta. Jokic’s freakish ball-handling “for a center” is a huge positive, even if his ball-handling might not be as good in absolute terms as some of the best ball handling guards and wings of all time. Of course, the flip side of this is that we could say the same thing about some other aspects of Jokic’s game in ways that would cut against him: For instance, his incredible rebounding is less of a boost to his team than it would be if he rebounded like that as a guard. His lack of rim protection is worse for his team since he is a center than if he was a guard. Etc. But I think we all generally recognize those things and discussion about him does typically contextualize his strengths and weaknesses based on his position. And you certainly do when it suits you. Ball handling should be the same. But, of course, if you reject that way of thinking about things, then you should really see the parts of my earlier post talking about the advantages in terms of size and strength that Jokic has over other GOAT-offensive-player candidates. If Jokic’s ball-handling is a negative even though he’s a great ball-handler for his position, then Jokic’s size and strength (which, by the way, draws huge amounts of “defensive attention”) is an absolutely enormous positive compared to great offensive guards and forwards and you can’t turn around and say that that positive is mitigated by the fact that they aren’t centers.