Can we safely say Jokic is the best offensive player ever?

[Snake3]

.

Incredible scorer. Not always the best of the best with playmaking. Teams were better offensively in regular season than in the playoffs

Up there with anyone, lacks proof of concept with truly atg offense teams

You don't have the be the best playmaker to generate the best offense. It's whatever that gets the results. Curry isn't the best play maker either, yet how he scored will generate one of the best offenses ever.

MJ has lead his team to be the best offensive team in the league multiple times in both regular season and playoffs. While having one of the best plus/minus stats ever. And I feel like you shouldn't compare across eras for it otherwise you'll get wonker results. Like even the Bulls 91 had a better Ortg than the 85 Lakers. But Hawks of 22 have better Ortg than both of them.

The reason why Jokic is special imo, is that with Curry you could slow down the shooting. It's Curry gravity that generates the best offense. With Jokic, he's the best passer in the league and one of the most efficient scorers.

With Magic, although he was a efficient scorer, he wasn't a volume scorer. That wasn't his play style even though he score more often.

And with Jokic, he doesn't hold on the ball that much like your traditional point guard. This makes it more difficult to stop. So you could take away his scoring, but he'll set up his teammates. You could stop his teammates, and he'll drop an efficient 30. And still probably get close to a triple double. And he can score almost anywhere on the floor.

I am talking about offensw relative to league here. And it depends how we define atg offense, jordan has truly elite offenses, as does curry. But they fall a notch behind others (namely lebron, magic amd nash teams) in playoffs

I still don't get how you came to that conclusion. I do get the offense relative to the league. How would you come up with that? If you are talking about rOrtg, then I would think the only way it would apply for LeBron would be in 16 and 17, right? If that's the case, why not include Curry too? In 17, it was a +7.7 rOrtg above league average in the POs. Magic in 87 was a +7.8 rOrtg above league average in the POs. I wouldn't consider it to be that much better to not include in the conversation. Unless you may not count the 17 due to KD stacking the deck, but that would open up another can of worms with superteams. LeBron with the Cavs in 16 and 17 went crazy in the POs. +8.8 and +9 respectively.

[falcolombardi]

You don't have the be the best playmaker to generate the best offense. It's whatever that gets the results. Curry isn't the best play maker either, yet how he scored will generate one of the best offenses ever.

MJ has lead his team to be the best offensive team in the league multiple times in both regular season and playoffs. While having one of the best plus/minus stats ever. And I feel like you shouldn't compare across eras for it otherwise you'll get wonker results. Like even the Bulls 91 had a better Ortg than the 85 Lakers. But Hawks of 22 have better Ortg than both of them.

The reason why Jokic is special imo, is that with Curry you could slow down the shooting. It's Curry gravity that generates the best offense. With Jokic, he's the best passer in the league and one of the most efficient scorers.

With Magic, although he was a efficient scorer, he wasn't a volume scorer. That wasn't his play style even though he score more often.

And with Jokic, he doesn't hold on the ball that much like your traditional point guard. This makes it more difficult to stop. So you could take away his scoring, but he'll set up his teammates. You could stop his teammates, and he'll drop an efficient 30. And still probably get close to a triple double. And he can score almost anywhere on the floor.

I am talking about offensw relative to league here. And it depends how we define atg offense, jordan has truly elite offenses, as does curry. But they fall a notch behind others (namely lebron, magic amd nash teams) in playoffs

I still don't get how you came to that conclusion. I do get the offense relative to the league. How would you come up with that? If you are talking about rOrtg, then I would think the only way it would apply for LeBron would be in 16 and 17, right? If that's the case, why not include Curry too? In 17, it was a +7.7 rOrtg above league average in the POs. Magic in 87 was a +7.8 rOrtg above league average in the POs. I wouldn't consider it to be that much better to not include in the conversation. Unless you may not count the 17 due to KD stacking the deck, but that would open up another can of worms with superteams. LeBron with the Cavs in 16 and 17 went crazy in the POs. +8.8 and +9 respectively.

Mostly the fact that curry + durant didnt lead to better playoffs offense (worse, in fact taking 2 healthy years for each pair) that lebron + kyrie is a point in lebron favor.

Is a small difference but noteworthy since the criticisms often in guys like lebron (or paul, or magic, or nash) in some comparisions with guys like curry (or jordan, or bird, or jokic, you get the idea) is the idea/theory that the latter give a higher ceiling to a offense due to being less ball dominant and/or better shooters (applies less so to nash*)

Which is why i kinda like to hold that reasoning of "ceiling" accountable when debating atg's

For my preference i think the quantity of elite offenses year in ans year out (sometimes in completely different rosters and even styles of play league wise) of guys like lebron are a stronger argument but people usually laser focus on "peaks" so i debate it on that ground

[Snake3]

I am talking about offensw relative to league here. And it depends how we define atg offense, jordan has truly elite offenses, as does curry. But they fall a notch behind others (namely lebron, magic amd nash teams) in playoffs

I still don't get how you came to that conclusion. I do get the offense relative to the league. How would you come up with that? If you are talking about rOrtg, then I would think the only way it would apply for LeBron would be in 16 and 17, right? If that's the case, why not include Curry too? In 17, it was a +7.7 rOrtg above league average in the POs. Magic in 87 was a +7.8 rOrtg above league average in the POs. I wouldn't consider it to be that much better to not include in the conversation. Unless you may not count the 17 due to KD stacking the deck, but that would open up another can of worms with superteams. LeBron with the Cavs in 16 and 17 went crazy in the POs. +8.8 and +9 respectively.

Mostly the fact that curry + durant didnt lead to better playoffs offense (worse, in fact taking 2 healthy years for each pair) that lebron + kyrie is a point in lebron favor.

Is a small difference but noteworthy since the criticisms often in guys like lebron (or paul, or magic, or nash) in some comparisions with guys like curry (or jordan, or bird, or jokic, you get the idea) is the idea/theory that the latter give a higher ceiling to a offense due to being less ball dominant and/or better shooters (applies less so to nash*)

Which is why i kinda like to hold that reasoning of "ceiling" accountable when debating atg's

For my preference i think the quantity of elite offenses year in ans year out (sometimes in completely different rosters and even styles of play league wise) of guys like lebron are a stronger argument but people usually laser focus on "peaks" so i debate it on that ground

Yeah, I tend to think that ball dominant players won't work well with other star wing players, so the ceiling may not be as high too in a larger sample size. But it depends on the wing player and if they need the ball in the hands. Like Curry don't, KD doesn't really need it. But it doesn't mean ball dominant players can't win with other star ball dominant players they can't win.

But I was wrong with that as with the Cavs in 16 did in fact win and their offense was the best.

The Rockets in 18 had a combination of CP3 and Harden and they were the best offense in the league in 18. Not the best in the POs, but they they had a large sample size showing it could work.

But LeBron has never lead a team to the best offense in the RS. That doesn't change that he is among the goats offensive players. Same thing with Jokic. He has never did that either. You can argue with some context of the reason why, but that still doesn't stop him from being one of the best offensive players ever imo. He only lead the team in 23 to the best offense in the POs.

[MavsDirk41]

I, for one, am utterly shocked that you aren't willing to defend your viewpoint.

Ok TajFTW you want advanced statistics?

Bird top 4 seasons Offensive Win Shares
11.2
10.5
10.4
9.6

Bird top 4 seasons OBPM
7.8
7.3
6.8
6.6

Giannis top 4 seasons Offensive Win Shares
9.5
9.2
8.9
8.3

Giannis top 4 seasons OBPM
7.6
7.4
6.7
6.3

Bird is a better 3 point shooter
Bird is a better mid range shooter
Bird is a better post player
Bird is a better free throw shooter
Bird is a better passer

So how many games have you watched Bird play on Youtube?

Giannis's pts per 100 possessions is 35.1 for his career. He has 6 seasons (including this season) with a pts per 100 of 40 or greater.

Bird's pts per 100 possessions is 30.3 for his career. He has 0 seasons with a pts per 100 of 40 or greater.

Bird's TS%+ for his career is 105. Giannis's TS%+ for his career is 108.

Including this season, they have both played 12 seasons. Giannis has scored more per possession while doing it more efficiently. Spare me this "it isn't close" garbage just because you watched Larry Bird play when you were 10 years old, lmao. That's the funniest rationale ive ever heard for defending a player.

You are trying to debate a player from the past based off of you looking at stats on basketball reference. You are talking about points per 100 possessions but ignoring everything i stated. What about offensive win shares? What about OBPM? What about actually shooting the ball outside of 5 feet from the basket? 3 point shooting? Mid range shooting?

And you are a teenage boy but you are trying to talk trash to me cause i watched Bird play when i was 13 years old? Clown.

[MrPainfulTruth]

I am hard challenged to find anyone with a skill set comparable to his. I think the only one who comes close is Bird, but he didnt have to carry the offensive burden of a mediocre roster like Jokic. Between low post, midrange floaters, hooks and jumpers and now even a deadly 3pt quote combined with his playmaking and offensive rebounding, noone gets close imho. We are falsely conditioned to not respect anyone under 30 - like playing 10 more years while declining would make him more of "the best offensive player ever" somehow.

[Lalouie]

he is unique and has tools no for real center should have
his passing skill vaults him past most all players

there is nothing rote about his game. on that level he and bird stand alone

[JM00n69]

Best offensive player means a combo of being a top playmaker all time/top scorer and being lethal in clutch.

Many better pure scorers in the history but none are as good playmakers. Some better playmakers but none are as good as scorers.

[JM00n69]

Ok TajFTW you want advanced statistics?

Bird top 4 seasons Offensive Win Shares
11.2
10.5
10.4
9.6

Bird top 4 seasons OBPM
7.8
7.3
6.8
6.6

Giannis top 4 seasons Offensive Win Shares
9.5
9.2
8.9
8.3

Giannis top 4 seasons OBPM
7.6
7.4
6.7
6.3

Bird is a better 3 point shooter
Bird is a better mid range shooter
Bird is a better post player
Bird is a better free throw shooter
Bird is a better passer

So how many games have you watched Bird play on Youtube?

Giannis's pts per 100 possessions is 35.1 for his career. He has 6 seasons (including this season) with a pts per 100 of 40 or greater.

Bird's pts per 100 possessions is 30.3 for his career. He has 0 seasons with a pts per 100 of 40 or greater.

Bird's TS%+ for his career is 105. Giannis's TS%+ for his career is 108.

Including this season, they have both played 12 seasons. Giannis has scored more per possession while doing it more efficiently. Spare me this "it isn't close" garbage just because you watched Larry Bird play when you were 10 years old, lmao. That's the funniest rationale ive ever heard for defending a player.

You are trying to debate a player from the past based off of you looking at stats on basketball reference. You are talking about points per 100 possessions but ignoring everything i stated. What about offensive win shares? What about OBPM? What about actually shooting the ball outside of 5 feet from the basket? 3 point shooting? Mid range shooting?

And you are a teenage boy but you are trying to talk trash to me cause i watched Bird play when i was 13 years old? Clown.

Bird an all time great. And Giannis has had a good stretch but both are worse that Jok on this 5yr stretch. Giannis especially as we're only talking about offence

[JM00n69]

If you could pull any player from the past the only ones are prime MJ/LBJ and Shaq just because he'd be unstoppable still.

[Jamaaliver]

Never seen these highlights before.

This is glorious!!!

Read on Twitter

[KayDee35]

Better offensive players based on what?

Based on eye test, statistics, and advanced metrics.

Bird is that special kind of player who has many amazing moments that it's difficult to have an unbiased view of him without watching entire games and then examining the stats. In that way, Bird is much like Kobe.

Kobe is often lauded as being one of the GOATs but when you compare him to players like MJ based on watching an entire game, looking at the box score, and advanced metrics, he comes up significantly short. Not by much, but enough that people in the know will rank MJ over Kobe consistently.

We will see below that Bird's statistical impact rankings put him the same tier with Kobe and not in the tier with MJ and others.

Bird's best season for WS/48 ranks 155 while the top 10 features the players like Kareem, MJ, LeBron, Wilt, Steph, and Jokic. Kobe's best season does not rank in the top 250.

For OBMP, Bird's best season ranks #42 while Jokic, Steph, LeBron, and MJ are in the top 10. Kobe's best year is #55.

For VORP, BIrd's best season ranks #40 while MJ, LeBron, and Jokic are in the top 10. Kobe is #63.

For PER, Bird's best year ranks #97 while Jokic, Wilt, MJ, LeBron, and Giannis are in the top 10. Kobe's best year is #91.

At this point, the arguments for Bird's dominance sound much the arguments for Kobe's dominance. They are simply not backed by evidence. Both are great players. Legends. But they are not at the same level as Kareem, MJ, LeBron, etc.

Ahhh advanced metrics….

Bird has terrific advanced statistics. It's no coincidence that his best years are ones in which he had great advanced metrics. In his 3 consecutive MVP seasons he led the league in VORP (3), BPM (3), PER (2), and WS/48 (2)!!!! Bird's peak is up there.

Kobe never led the league in any advanced metric except Usage. So I can understand why some might be offended by my comparison.

Boston improved by 30 games in Birds first year in Boston. 30 games.

Bird was hugely impactful but there were other factors also responsible for some of that change. I don't want to dig up that history here because we'd go on forever. Anyway, Bird's rookie year impact, while big, was quite a bit lower than Bird's later years.

Larry Bird played in an era when the 3 point shot wasnt really part of a teams offense. He only had 4 seasons in which he averaged at least 3 - 3 point attempts per game. He shot 40% from 3 in those 4 seasons. 40%….His field goal percentage from the floor overall was 50%. He was an 89% free throw shooter. The man had no weaknesses offensively. That is why people compare his offensive game to Jokic. Jordan didnt have the 3 point shot of a Bird. James is a mediocre free throw shooter without the mid range game of a Jordan or Bird. Bird also wasnt the point guard for the team and played off ball more than James. Kobe was just inefficient….i can poke holes in all of their offensive games. I cant for Bird or Jokic.

Im not saying he is the greatest offensive player ever. But if you are talking about 7-8 players, he is in the discussion. That is why people who actually warched him play say the same thing.

Bird could do everything on offense. I agree.

Imho, Bird's skillset was underutilized. For example, considering how great a passer he was he never accounted for more than 29% of his teammates scoring and averaged about 25% for his career. Jokic is being utilized an appropriate amount and therefore has 7 seasons where he has accounted for more than 29% of his teammates scoring, with a peak of 46%.

Bird's 3-pt shooting is another example where he should have been told to shoot way more from 3-point range. But again while the skillset is there it is being underutilized.

In the end, Bird's subpar utilization keeps him from being in that top tier, imho.

[DCasey91]

It's true the modern era today are flat better at getting max results especially on offense.

Can be all sorts of different ways, huge usage, hyperhelio does in fact upscale basic metrics

That's where the inflation kicks in

Put all that aside basic philosophy will tell you giving 4 out Shaq today or Hakeem would bring in awesome results. Shaq played with a more defensive orientated setup

No chance I'm leavin either or by themselves it would be automatic offense every single time.

Keem's teams lead the league in 3balls made which was 8 and 9 with the shortened line the next........

One rocked a 112 (+12 diff) and the other somehow got to 115 in the playoffs.

Always go back to 5vs5 instead of the one and look at what can be paired or the rest of the four with to max it out.

The KD and Curry stuff along with Wade and Bron is missing the mark imho. What would you rather have, one 98 or one 97 and 96. Simple answer

Seldom seen do analysers consider volume along with concrete marks

Anyway Jokic does in alot of ways supersede exposure in weaknesses of totality of offense because he has more ways than anybody else to generate offense.

Bron had the wall, less spacing early Cavs, streaky jumper

Jordan was never a good 3ball exponent

Curry isn't an elite passer and struggles in close out situations in the playoffs for the majority

Shaq FT's, Hakeem was less skilful on the block facilitating compared to Shaq

Magic doesn't have the volume of Jokic

Yes the competition at the center spot isn't as strong but from full court all the way in Jokic can literally do anything

Said it years ago I do think the Nuggets would be more successful if it was a more defensive team. Then you would see how much more impressive his offense is.

Dude is legit a one man offense. And please don't bring up Harden his stuff is way too simplified in comparision. 3/2, 4/1 roll/pnr straight ahead, late iso/kick, no O rebound presence.

[M2J]

It's true the modern era today are flat better at getting max results especially on offense.

Can be all sorts of different ways, huge usage, hyperhelio does in fact upscale basic metrics

That's where the inflation kicks in

Put all that aside basic philosophy will tell you giving 4 out Shaq today or Hakeem would bring in awesome results. Shaq played with a more defensive orientated setup

No chance I'm leavin either or by themselves it would be automatic offense every single time.

Keem's teams lead the league in 3balls made which was 8 and 9 with the shortened line the next........

One rocked a 112 (+12 diff) and the other somehow got to 115 in the playoffs.

Always go back to 5vs5 instead of the one and look at what can be paired or the rest of the four with to max it out.

The KD and Curry stuff along with Wade and Bron is missing the mark imho. What would you rather have, one 98 or one 97 and 96. Simple answer

Seldom seen do analysers consider volume along with concrete marks

Anyway Jokic does in alot of ways supersede exposure in weaknesses of totality of offense because he has more ways than anybody else to generate offense.

Bron had the wall, less spacing early Cavs, streaky jumper

Jordan was never a good 3ball exponent

Curry isn't an elite passer and struggles in close out situations in the playoffs for the majority

Shaq FT's, Hakeem was less skilful on the block facilitating compared to Shaq

Magic doesn't have the volume of Jokic

Yes the competition at the center spot isn't as strong but from full court all the way in Jokic can literally do anything

Said it years ago I do think the Nuggets would be more successful if it was a more defensive team. Then you would see how much more impressive his offense is.

Dude is legit a one man offense. And please don't bring up Harden his stuff is way too simplified in comparision. 3/2, 4/1 roll/pnr straight ahead, late iso/kick, no O rebound presence.

Jokic is an offensive juggernaut
Greatest passing big of all time. But, I will say a lot of those DHO assists are basically screen assists and he gets a lot of them

Quite like Joel with Maxey last year when he had a jump in assists, and Draymond with Steph and Klay.

[DCasey91]

It's true the modern era today are flat better at getting max results especially on offense.

Can be all sorts of different ways, huge usage, hyperhelio does in fact upscale basic metrics

That's where the inflation kicks in

Put all that aside basic philosophy will tell you giving 4 out Shaq today or Hakeem would bring in awesome results. Shaq played with a more defensive orientated setup

No chance I'm leavin either or by themselves it would be automatic offense every single time.

Keem's teams lead the league in 3balls made which was 8 and 9 with the shortened line the next........

One rocked a 112 (+12 diff) and the other somehow got to 115 in the playoffs.

Always go back to 5vs5 instead of the one and look at what can be paired or the rest of the four with to max it out.

The KD and Curry stuff along with Wade and Bron is missing the mark imho. What would you rather have, one 98 or one 97 and 96. Simple answer

Seldom seen do analysers consider volume along with concrete marks

Anyway Jokic does in alot of ways supersede exposure in weaknesses of totality of offense because he has more ways than anybody else to generate offense.

Bron had the wall, less spacing early Cavs, streaky jumper

Jordan was never a good 3ball exponent

Curry isn't an elite passer and struggles in close out situations in the playoffs for the majority

Shaq FT's, Hakeem was less skilful on the block facilitating compared to Shaq

Magic doesn't have the volume of Jokic

Yes the competition at the center spot isn't as strong but from full court all the way in Jokic can literally do anything

Said it years ago I do think the Nuggets would be more successful if it was a more defensive team. Then you would see how much more impressive his offense is.

Dude is legit a one man offense. And please don't bring up Harden his stuff is way too simplified in comparision. 3/2, 4/1 roll/pnr straight ahead, late iso/kick, no O rebound presence.

Jokic is an offensive juggernaut
Greatest passing big of all time. But, I will say a lot of those DHO assists are basically screen assists and he gets a lot of them

Quite like Joel with Maxey last year when he had a jump in assists, and Draymond with Steph and Klay.

But I wouldn't call it superfluous. It's an active and important part of the Nugs offense. Nugs do play old school like in the way they implement quality over quantity which one would think heck we need more just to keep up with the meta.

Like a creation pass from Bron/Jokic/Bird/Magic is going to more beneficial than noisy compartlization of the likes of Giannis/KD/Kawhi/George just to boost assist numbers. Same with Embiid

The purity of the offensive flow in total especially when he's on the elbow is crazy supreme.

Goes full dirk rainbow, punishes mismatches inside, whips Bron passes to the open wing with little margin for error, lobs over his head to Gordon, hits cutters in stride like its nothing etc.

It's different but essentially with Steph, Bron, Jordan, Shaq and Jokic you're going to need 3 active guys on defence guarding whatever they do when they dictate... Which they do a heck of a lot. It's just that with him it really is pick your poison, if you stop the cutter or DHOS, then he can chill at the 3p line and sink it or he can nestle in with his big frame backed up and start the offensive threat again.

It's really really difficult to defend a player whose just as well equipped to be the literal PG at the top, Roll man, Screen Setter, shot creator, or playmaker/facilitator all in the one go.

If you deny the cutter to let's say Lebron you'll happily live with a contested midrange or god forbid you don't have inside protection and he just trucks in at GOAT level finishing. Jokic gets the best of both worlds. What do you want? Dirk, you want some Mchale? You want some Magic/Bird deft cut passing or Bron whips

[Jamaaliver]

Spoiler:

Read on Twitter

[Peregrine01]

I am talking about offensw relative to league here. And it depends how we define atg offense, jordan has truly elite offenses, as does curry. But they fall a notch behind others (namely lebron, magic amd nash teams) in playoffs

I still don't get how you came to that conclusion. I do get the offense relative to the league. How would you come up with that? If you are talking about rOrtg, then I would think the only way it would apply for LeBron would be in 16 and 17, right? If that's the case, why not include Curry too? In 17, it was a +7.7 rOrtg above league average in the POs. Magic in 87 was a +7.8 rOrtg above league average in the POs. I wouldn't consider it to be that much better to not include in the conversation. Unless you may not count the 17 due to KD stacking the deck, but that would open up another can of worms with superteams. LeBron with the Cavs in 16 and 17 went crazy in the POs. +8.8 and +9 respectively.

Mostly the fact that curry + durant didnt lead to better playoffs offense (worse, in fact taking 2 healthy years for each pair) that lebron + kyrie is a point in lebron favor.

Is a small difference but noteworthy since the criticisms often in guys like lebron (or paul, or magic, or nash) in some comparisions with guys like curry (or jordan, or bird, or jokic, you get the idea) is the idea/theory that the latter give a higher ceiling to a offense due to being less ball dominant and/or better shooters (applies less so to nash*)

Which is why i kinda like to hold that reasoning of "ceiling" accountable when debating atg's

For my preference i think the quantity of elite offenses year in ans year out (sometimes in completely different rosters and even styles of play league wise) of guys like lebron are a stronger argument but people usually laser focus on "peaks" so i debate it on that ground

Lebron and Kyrie were also routinely playing against a weakass east. Who was the best team they played against during those championship years? The DeRozan Raptors.

[Frichuela]

Spoiler:

Read on Twitter

This. And the fact that he is the RPM leader of all time!

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/bpm_career.html

[Jamaaliver]

This. And the fact that he is the RPM leader of all time!

Remind me of what RPM is, how it's calculated and why it's important again...

Spoiler:

[Goose egg]

Jokic is the best offensive player ever. Jordan and Wilt still better when factoring defense though.

[The Big O]

Between him and LeBron, IMO.