How good is Jokic? [Poll added]

[Rashoismydad]

About Dirk, not only my favorite player wasn't really an alpha in his first two years, he was thinking about going back to Europe in his first season. In terms of poise, leadership and pure talent, Jokic is definitely better than 22-year-old Dirk was, and I can say that confidently. Now what separated Dirk was his relentless work ethic. People talk about Kobe as this machine, and he himself liked to put himself in that light. Dirk done the same amount of work and maybe some more, regularly showing up in empty gyms at 5, 6 AM. The guy was an animal in terms of preparation, and worked through most summers with Holger, coming up with all sorts of weird training methods. Whether Jokic has that kind of hunger, we'll have to see. He probably doesn't, very few does, but he is so talented that even with a good but not great work ethic, he can be a perennial Top 10 player in the league. Based on the last 30+ games of last season, he is already there, even when he plays slightly above 30 minutes.

I think its fair to question the work ethic of a former fat kid who cant manage to stay on the court 30 minutes despite being a Magic/Dirk hybrid.

Calling him a top 10 player in this league...just wow. Post all star break (and starting well before it) Towns put up 28.4/13.4/2.2 on .597/.434/.841 and I think its premature to declare him a top 10 player. Thats a 7 footer putting up Curry level 3 point shooting, elite level rebounding, elite overall scoring, and elite efficiency all around. Those are video game numbers, not something real players do. Those numbers would rank him the NBAs #4 scorer, #4 rebounder, and top 5 3 point shooter. Not on a per minute basis or extrapolated out, in pure production.

[kinggnik87]

Just to get this straight, I said

"If we speculate the future base on now, I can see Jokic turned into a Magic-Dirk player, while KAT becomes the Shaq-Bosh type player."

I meant in FUTURE I see him as a Magic-Dirk hybrid, not "now".


[Edit] Removed a sentence.

[Rashoismydad]

Just to get this straight, I said

"If we speculate the future base on now, I can see Jokic turned into a Magic-Dirk player, while KAT becomes the Shaq-Bosh type player."

I meant in FUTURE I see him as a Magic-Dirk hybrid, not "now".


[Edit] Removed a sentence.

Well I dont want to misquote you, but I still think thats a ridiculous statement. How about instead of the illusions of Magic we look at more realistic and accurate comps? Honestly I think those are both horrible comps that make little sense, his game is nothing like Dirks or Magics. And I think its a horrible comp for Towns as well, who based on his being top 5 in the entire league in scoring, rebounding, and 3 point shooting after the all star break doesnt really have a good comp because weve never seen anything like it.

[Johnny Firpo]

Calling him a top 10 player in this league...just wow. Post all star break (and starting well before it) Towns put up 28.4/13.4/2.2 on .597/.434/.841 and I think its premature to declare him a top 10 player.

Glad you brought up post all star break stats. Jokic after the All-Star break averaged 20/12/6, if I'm not mistaken on 58% FG, around 36-38% from deep, around 83% from the line, and his efficiency was around 65%TS. I just went over the stats now, could be slightly different but definitely in the ballpark. My question is, let's forget Towns for a minute, if you see that separately, how in the hell do you not see this as special? Come on man. Forget the comparison and Top 10 stuff, just take a look at these numbers, and say it is not special. And don't say small sample size, you just did the same sample size for Towns. Do you know how many center averaged these numbers on that efficiency? Zero.

[Rashoismydad]

Calling him a top 10 player in this league...just wow. Post all star break (and starting well before it) Towns put up 28.4/13.4/2.2 on .597/.434/.841 and I think its premature to declare him a top 10 player.

Glad you brought up post all star break stats. Jokic after the All-Star break averaged 20/12/6, if I'm not mistaken on 58% FG, around 36-38% from deep, around 83% from the line, and his efficiency was around 65%TS. I just went over the stats now, could be slightly different but definitely in the ballpark. My question is, let's forget Towns for a minute, if you see that separately, how in the hell do you not see this as special? Come on man. Forget the comparison and Top 10 stuff, just take a look at these numbers, and say it is not special. And don't say small sample size, you just did the same sample size for Towns. Do you know how many center averaged these numbers on that efficiency? Zero.

20/12/6 is certainly impressive, I never said otherwise. I also never said rich mans Brad Miller is his ceiling, but I do believe his ceiling to be significantly lower than Towns. Its too bad Jokics post all star numbers were actually 17.7/11.6/6.1 and 25.9% from 3.

How about a better rebounding, inferior defending Marc Gasol? That make you any happier?

[Rashoismydad]

"Durant is 20 and 6'10"
Roy is 25 and 6'6"

Roy has played 3 seasons, Durant 2.
Even if you only compared their first two seasons, durant would be superior despite being 19 and 20 those years to Roys 22 and 23. Based on history 28/8/4 as a 21 year old 3rd year player is very possible for Durant. When Roy was 21 he was trying to nail coeds.

No comparison. Unfortunately I have to wait for this to be proven."

This was from me 8 years ago. I was wrong, he dropped 30/8/3 in his third year.

Cya in 8 years Jokic cultists.

[Johnny Firpo]

How about a better rebounding, inferior defending Marc Gasol? That make you any happier?

Still not enough, man. He is a much better passer and much more efficient scorer. These are the two main reasons why we say these stuffs. If Jokic would be a passer like Gasol - still very good, but not necessarily great-, we probably wouldn't talk about HOF-potential. That's what makes him truly special, that's what opens up most of the stuff he does, and that is why he doesn't see as many double teams. It's an automatic open shot for a cutter or shooter. Look at this graph. It literally shows Jokic standing alone, looking over the NBA.

[Alatan]

Calling him a top 10 player in this league...just wow. Post all star break (and starting well before it) Towns put up 28.4/13.4/2.2 on .597/.434/.841 and I think its premature to declare him a top 10 player.

Glad you brought up post all star break stats. Jokic after the All-Star break averaged 20/12/6, if I'm not mistaken on 58% FG, around 36-38% from deep, around 83% from the line, and his efficiency was around 65%TS. I just went over the stats now, could be slightly different but definitely in the ballpark. My question is, let's forget Towns for a minute, if you see that separately, how in the hell do you not see this as special? Come on man. Forget the comparison and Top 10 stuff, just take a look at these numbers, and say it is not special. And don't say small sample size, you just did the same sample size for Towns. Do you know how many center averaged these numbers on that efficiency? Zero.

20/12/6 is certainly impressive, I never said otherwise. I also never said rich mans Brad Miller is his ceiling, but I do believe his ceiling to be significantly lower than Towns. Its too bad Jokics post all star numbers were actually 17.7/11.6/6.1 and 25.9% from 3.

How about a better rebounding, inferior defending Marc Gasol? That make you any happier?

I dont get why you have the need to belittle Jokic... Does Jokic being good somehow insult your overlord Towns ? Marc Gasol is a great player but his offensive impact is nowhere close to what Jokic's is now let alone what he could be doing in his prime. Is it so hard to understand that Jokic's combination of shooting, passing and playmaking from the center position is incredibly hard to deal with and results in a good offense that rivals that of great isolation scorers? Towns most certainly has the potential to be the leagues MVP, i think that Jokic has it too. Will they reach it? Who knows, we can only make predictions but you dont even what to aknowledge that there is any possibility that Jokic is a great talent.

[Rashoismydad]

Wait...

Passes per assist and FG% improvement off passes?

Pardon me if im wrong, but wouldnt a lower number of passes per assist be better?

And what exactly is FG% improvement off passes? The difference between a players overall FG% and their FG% off passers from said player?

If what I said above is correct, wouldnt that put him in the bottom half of those players in passes per assist?

How many times are you people going to pull out some obscure passing statistic to prove his greatness? I mean dont you get sick of basing every single argument on one skill? Dont you get tired of citing team related statistics?

[Rashoismydad]

I dont get why you have the need to belittle Jokic... Does Jokic being good somehow insult your overlord Towns ? Marc Gasol is a great player but his offensive impact is nowhere close to what Jokic's is now let alone what he could be doing in his prime. Is it so hard to understand that Jokic's combination of shooting, passing and playmaking from the center position is incredibly hard to deal with and results in a good offense that rivals that of great isolation scorers? Towns most certainly has the potential to be the leagues MVP, i think that Jokic has it too. Will they reach it? Who knows, we can only make predictions but you dont even what to aknowledge that there is any possibility that Jokic is a great talent.

We have a fundamental difference in what we consider a "playmaker". I dont consider guys who sit in the high post and hit cutters as playmakers. I consider playmakers to be people who create opportunities, not guys who take advantage of them...hence the "maker" suffix. Which is also a big portion of why I am not as impressed with his passing and laugh when people want to label him Magic-esque. Ive seen many players capable of making the passes he makes, I watched Garnett deal 5+ assists a game for nearly a decade, I grew up watching Vlade and Miller dealing in the princeton offense. Jokic put up an impressive 8.6 assists per 100 possessions, damn near Vlades best of 9.6, and a hair better than Millers best of 8.5. But you really want to try to tell me how hes HIV- magic? OK!

New nickname, HIV-.

Winning is fun AF, even if you have to wait years before your opposition comes to its senses.

[Johnny Firpo]

Wait...

Passes per assist and FG% improvement off passes?

Pardon me if im wrong, but wouldnt a lower number of passes per assist be better?

No, not really. Good passing teams like the Nuggets make the easy passes. When you see a low number of passes per assist, that simply means you have a ball dominant player. That can be a positive or a negative. The more important part is the FG% improvement off passes.

And what exactly is FG% improvement off passes? The difference between a players overall FG% and their FG% off passers from said player?

That's exactly what it is, and it means that Jokic not only finds his guys, but he finds them in the best possible position available. If you watch him play - which you clearly don't -, you will see that he often helds the ball at the top of the key while the Nuggets players are in motion. Then Jokic finds the best possible option. It is remarkable to watch, and honestly, you miss out on a lot by letting your emotions take over and be stubborn about it.

If what I said above is correct, wouldnt that put him in the bottom half of those players in passes per assist?

Again, passes per assist simply shows you if a player is ball dominant or not. It is not inherently bad or good, it depends. With Westbrook it's a good thing, with Mudiay it's not. Jokic is not a ball dominant player, he gives up the ball easily when the situation is not there, and that is a good thing for him. For 2016/2017 Westbrook, it would have been a bad thing, because he didn't really have much help. So that means he dribbles, dribbles, dribbles, and either shoots or finds someone for the assist. Hence the low pass per assist number? Do you get it now?

How many times are you people going to pull out some obscure passing statistic to prove his greatness? I mean dont you get sick of basing every single argument on one skill? Dont you get tired of citing team related statistics?

How is that obscure? Come on man, you are starting to get childish. You hated the raw assist numbers too, PER 36, AST%. Which assist stat is not obscure in your eyes?

[Rashoismydad]

Wait...

Passes per assist and FG% improvement off passes?

Pardon me if im wrong, but wouldnt a lower number of passes per assist be better?

No, not really. Good passing teams like the Nuggets make the easy passes. When you see a low number of passes per assist, that simply means you have a ball dominant player. That can be a positive or a negative. The more important part is the FG% improvement off passes.

And what exactly is FG% improvement off passes? The difference between a players overall FG% and their FG% off passers from said player?

That's exactly what it is, and it means that Jokic not only finds his guys, but he finds them in the best possible position available. If you watch him play - which you clearly don't -, you will see that he often helds the ball at the top of the key while the Nuggets players are in motion. Then Jokic finds the best possible option. It is remarkable to watch, and honestly, you miss out on a lot by letting your emotions take over and be stubborn about it.

If what I said above is correct, wouldnt that put him in the bottom half of those players in passes per assist?

Again, passes per assist simply shows you if a player is ball dominant or not. It is not inherently bad or good, it depends. With Westbrook it's a good thing, with Mudiay it's not. Jokic is not a ball dominant player, he gives up the ball easily when the situation is not there, and that is a good thing for him. For 2016/2017 Westbrook, it would have been a bad thing, because he didn't really have much help. So that means he dribbles, dribbles, dribbles, and either shoots or finds someone for the assist. Hence the low pass per assist number? Do you get it now?

How many times are you people going to pull out some obscure passing statistic to prove his greatness? I mean dont you get sick of basing every single argument on one skill? Dont you get tired of citing team related statistics?

How is that obscure? Come on man, you are starting to get childish. You hated the raw assist numbers too, PER 36, AST%. Which assist stat is not obscure in your eyes?

I feel like your first two statements are contradictory. You say "When you see a low number of passes per assist, that simply means you have a ball dominant player.", insinuating Jokic isnt a ball dominant player based on the high number of passes per assist. You then follow that in your second statement "If you watch him play - which you clearly don't -, you will see that he often helds the ball at the top of the key while the Nuggets players are in motion.". Which is it? Does he hold the ball and make scoring passes as one stat tries to allude to, or does he move the ball as the other alludes to?

Anyway, more small sample size passing stats trying to justify HIV- as Magic jr. Care to address the per 100 possession stat numbers I posted? You know, the ones that account for some of the differences in playstyle and pace of play between the eras and show HIV- to not be unique?

I am enjoying this btw, despite being called autistic and too dumb to understand advanced stats and calling you guys cult members.

[Johnny Firpo]

We have a fundamental difference in what we consider a "playmaker". I dont consider guys who sit in the high post and hit cutters as playmakers. I consider playmakers to be people who create opportunities, not guys who take advantage of them...hence the "maker" suffix.

You just described the difference between perimeter players and big men. Of course a traditional big man who mostly operates from the paint won't create the same way Magic did, come on man. Are you for real with these arguments? You can call him a point-center or whatever you want, instead of a playmaker, what he does is still extremely impactful and unique. Both are facts.

[Johnny Firpo]

Why would he be ball dominant, because he holds the ball at the key? When it's not there, he rarely forces it, he simply gives it back to a perimeter player. Also, how is finding 3-4 examples from the last 30 years showing that it is not unique? What you did was exactly show that it is rare and unique. You found 3-4 examples in a 30+ year sample. That's like one per decade, man.

[Rashoismydad]

We have a fundamental difference in what we consider a "playmaker". I dont consider guys who sit in the high post and hit cutters as playmakers. I consider playmakers to be people who create opportunities, not guys who take advantage of them...hence the "maker" suffix.

You just described the difference between perimeter players and big men. Of course a traditional big man who mostly operates from the paint won't create the same way Magic did, come on man. Are you for real with these arguments? You can call him a point-center or whatever you want, instead of a playmaker, what he does is still extremely impactful and unique. Both are facts.

Only hes not.

You love stats, why dont you love honesty? Thats what "advanced stats" are supposed to be all about, no? Cutting through the nonense and getting down to the guts? When you look at pace adjusted stats like per 100 possessions, you see that he is NOT unique, that his passing is NOT unheard of. I just brought up Miller and Vlade, who in all likelihood werent even the best passing big men of their era but were simply put into a system which took advantage of it.

[Alatan]

I dont get why you have the need to belittle Jokic... Does Jokic being good somehow insult your overlord Towns ? Marc Gasol is a great player but his offensive impact is nowhere close to what Jokic's is now let alone what he could be doing in his prime. Is it so hard to understand that Jokic's combination of shooting, passing and playmaking from the center position is incredibly hard to deal with and results in a good offense that rivals that of great isolation scorers? Towns most certainly has the potential to be the leagues MVP, i think that Jokic has it too. Will they reach it? Who knows, we can only make predictions but you dont even what to aknowledge that there is any possibility that Jokic is a great talent.

We have a fundamental difference in what we consider a "playmaker". I dont consider guys who sit in the high post and hit cutters as playmakers. I consider playmakers to be people who create opportunities, not guys who take advantage of them...hence the "maker" suffix. Which is also a big portion of why I am not as impressed with his passing and laugh when people want to label him Magic-esque. Ive seen many players capable of making the passes he makes, I watched Garnett deal 5+ assists a game for nearly a decade, I grew up watching Vlade and Miller dealing in the princeton offense. Jokic put up an impressive 8.6 assists per 100 possessions, damn near Vlades best of 9.6, and a hair better than Millers best of 8.5. But you really want to try to tell me how hes HIV- magic? OK!

New nickname, HIV-.

Winning is fun AF, even if you have to wait years before your opposition comes to its senses.

I agree that we have a fundamental difference it what we consider a playmaker. You probably only consider playmakers those that beat someone of the dribble and the pass to man left open by a rotating defender. That is only one way of making plays for others. As much as you disagree finding cutters by precise and timely passes in positions where they can get easy points is also a form of playmaking. Attracting double teams and passing to an open man is one as well. Opening the paint by pulling the defensive center out with your shooting threat while simultaneously setting a screen, having the ball for a possible handof to a cutter while also surveying for open three pointers/cutters and having the ability to drive on the bad positioned big is also a form of playmaking. You may call it sitting in the high post others my call it a quadruple threat. What ever the name is, it has shown to be very effective considering Denver's improvement in offense.

[Rashoismydad]

Why would he be ball dominant, because he holds the ball at the key? When it's not there, he rarely forces it, he simply gives it back to a perimeter player. Also, how is finding 3-4 examples from the last 30 years showing that it is not unique? What you did was exactly show that it is rare and unique. You found 3-4 examples in a 30+ year sample. That's like one per decade, man.

What are the odds that 2 of those guys were coached by Adelman and ran a particular offense? You honestly want to pretend it has nothing to do with it? That Adelman merely lucked into these fantastic passing big men? Shame on me for forgetting Cwebb and his 7.9 assists per 100.

That Adelman sure was a lucky guy!

I stand firm by my belief that if put in an offense that takes advantage of it, there have been and are many big men who could post big assist numbers. I believe KAT to be one of them after watching him for 2 years and seeing the careers of all the others I have mentioned previously. Like I said before, KATs 5+ APG average against the nuggets isnt an accident, its him flat out showing you what I am saying is true.

[Johnny Firpo]

Only hes not.

You love stats, why dont you love honesty? Thats what "advanced stats" are supposed to be all about, no? Cutting through the nonense and getting down to the guts? When you look at pace adjusted stats like per 100 possessions, you see that he is NOT unique, that his passing is NOT unheard of. I just brought up Miller and Vlade, who in all likelihood werent even the best passing big men of their era but were simply put into a system which took advantage of it.

What you say makes literally zero sense. It's like saying Towns is not a special scorer because Shaq was also an elite scorer, or Olajuwon, or David Robinson. All of these players are special scorers, just as Divac, and yes, even Brad Miller was a special passer for their positions. Just because a couple of big men did it before him, does not take away from his ability, just as it does not take away from Towns'. And Adelman coached for like 30 years. Why wouldn't it be possible to have two of the greatest passing big men? Also, I want to ask you this. Tons of PGs averaged 10 assists, or even 11. How does that make all-time great passers less unique? I don't get your argument, I think it doesn't make any sense. Or if it does, then let's not call anyone unique, because there are no unique players.

[Rashoismydad]

Only hes not.

You love stats, why dont you love honesty? Thats what "advanced stats" are supposed to be all about, no? Cutting through the nonense and getting down to the guts? When you look at pace adjusted stats like per 100 possessions, you see that he is NOT unique, that his passing is NOT unheard of. I just brought up Miller and Vlade, who in all likelihood werent even the best passing big men of their era but were simply put into a system which took advantage of it.

What you says makes literally zero sense. It's like saying Towns is not a special scorer because Shaq was also an elite scorer, or Olajuwon, or David Robinson. All of these players are special scorers, just as Divac, and yes, even Brad Miller was a special passer for their positions. Just because a couple of big men did it before him, does not take away from his ability, just as it does not take away from Towns'. And Adelman coached for like 30 years. Why wouldn't it be possible to have two of the greatest passing big men? Also, I want to ask you this. Tons of PGs averaged 10 assists, or even 11. How does that make all-time great passers less unique? I don't get your argument, I think it doesn't make any sense. Or if it does, then let's not call anyone unique, because there are no unique players.

Again, apparently Adelman just lucked into 3 of the best passing big men of all time and the system they played in had nothing to do with it. Thats the argument you have to make to keep HIV- as this unique talent.

Logic tells me that they posted those numbers because of opportunity and role, not because their talents simply dictated it. but you dont seem to be interested in that. You prefer to blind yourself from the odds of those "all time great passers" just happened to play for the same coach in the same system. Meanwhile, tell me more about how Jokic holds the balls and waits for cutters and movement...sounds like something I have seen before!

True or false, putting *any* big man into an Adelman-esque system is going to increase their stat numbers? Does it make them a better passer than if they werent put in that situation? If a guy put up 2 assists per game for 4 years, then went into that system and put up 4 APG is it because he became a better passer? This is the concept you guys cant seem to grasp.

Why in your mind does Towns average 5+ assists against the nuggets, more than against any other team? Coincidence? Random luck? Or is he trying to prove something?

Anything you can do...

[Alatan]

We have a fundamental difference in what we consider a "playmaker". I dont consider guys who sit in the high post and hit cutters as playmakers. I consider playmakers to be people who create opportunities, not guys who take advantage of them...hence the "maker" suffix.

You just described the difference between perimeter players and big men. Of course a traditional big man who mostly operates from the paint won't create the same way Magic did, come on man. Are you for real with these arguments? You can call him a point-center or whatever you want, instead of a playmaker, what he does is still extremely impactful and unique. Both are facts.

Only hes not.

You love stats, why dont you love honesty? Thats what "advanced stats" are supposed to be all about, no? Cutting through the nonense and getting down to the guts? When you look at pace adjusted stats like per 100 possessions, you see that he is NOT unique, that his passing is NOT unheard of. I just brought up Miller and Vlade, who in all likelihood werent even the best passing big men of their era but were simply put into a system which took advantage of it.

Now you are just making stuff up. Jokic assists per 100 possessions including his stretch of 20ish games (28% !) where he wasn't playing his role of point center is 8.6. Divac's career average was 5.3, most of the seasons he had around that with one season of 9.6. Miller had 3.6 with best season of 5.9. Garnet had 5.7 with 8 as highest.