’87 Magic Johnson vs ’23 Nikola Jokic

[Heej]

I think it's pretty sick how Magic's scoring gets held back by the talent around him but it definitely didn't give him an advantage as far as playmaking and racking up assists goes.

[WestGOAT]

Do you think that makes up for the gap in scoring?

Jokic scored 38.7 PP100 on 63.1 TS%
Magic scored 28.1 PP100 on 60.7 TS%

The gap in scoring seems massive, but I'd be more interested in seeing how their teams relative RS and PS ORtg compared, as both impact the game beyond scoring.

I'm unsure how useful rORtg is when comparing players from the 1980s and 2023.

The Lakers were a +7 ORtg in a league average ORtg of 108.3

The Nuggets were a +3 Ortg in a league average ORtg of 114.8 but Jokic On-Court is +11 Ortg

There are diminishing returns with Offenses and there is a cap on just how good you can be.

It might seem something relatively minor, but if I'm building around a player as my offensive engine, he needs to be able to get to handle the ball every possession to get the job done, unless maybe the player has off the ball gravity like Curry, which Jokic doesn't.

This shouldn't be the case. Jokic fits seamlessly next to any ball-handling guard or wing. That in itself gives him that Curry-Impact where he can still be impactful without the ball.

You don't need to worry about diminishing returns when paired with another ball handler. Magic isn't going to maximize playing next to another lead ball-handler [they would still be very good] but Magic's off-ball game [notably Pick and Roll big where Jokic is one of it not the GOATs] simply isn't in the same tier as Jokic's.

Thanks for looking up the numbers. I think you do have a point about diminishing returns with modern NBA offenses since the baseline/average nba offenses are way more optimized, so in a sense, a single player's impact on offense is being "capped" if NBA teams are hitting a ceiling. However, in theory, the most efficient ORtg would be at 200-300 ORtg (2-3 points per possession, not including and-1's and technical free-throws). Is this likely? Probably not, but who knows what this game will look like in 100 years..

Maybe we should look at standard deviations instead of absolute relative differences, as you mentioned looking at variance, to quantify how much of a statistical outliers the Lakers and Nuggets were in their respective season, otherwise we can't really compare. Especially since we, unfortunately, don't have on/off numbers for Magic.

Btw where do you get the +11 ORtg for Jokic? Nuggets without Jokic have a 106.9 ORtg, and 125.6 ORtg with him on the floor in 2023 during the RS according to BB-reference. Insane

[70sFan]

It's strange that people talk about the talent difference. If only Magic had played with comparable supporting casts to this Denver... but I guess 1989-91 didn't happen.

[Colbinii]

The gap in scoring seems massive, but I'd be more interested in seeing how their teams relative RS and PS ORtg compared, as both impact the game beyond scoring.

I'm unsure how useful rORtg is when comparing players from the 1980s and 2023.

The Lakers were a +7 ORtg in a league average ORtg of 108.3

The Nuggets were a +3 Ortg in a league average ORtg of 114.8 but Jokic On-Court is +11 Ortg

There are diminishing returns with Offenses and there is a cap on just how good you can be.

It might seem something relatively minor, but if I'm building around a player as my offensive engine, he needs to be able to get to handle the ball every possession to get the job done, unless maybe the player has off the ball gravity like Curry, which Jokic doesn't.

This shouldn't be the case. Jokic fits seamlessly next to any ball-handling guard or wing. That in itself gives him that Curry-Impact where he can still be impactful without the ball.

You don't need to worry about diminishing returns when paired with another ball handler. Magic isn't going to maximize playing next to another lead ball-handler [they would still be very good] but Magic's off-ball game [notably Pick and Roll big where Jokic is one of it not the GOATs] simply isn't in the same tier as Jokic's.

Thanks for looking up the numbers. I think you do have a point about diminishing returns with modern NBA offenses since the baseline/average nba offenses are way more optimized, so in a sense, a single player's impact on offense is being "capped" if NBA teams are hitting a ceiling. However, in theory, the most efficient ORtg would be at 200-300 ORtg (2-3 points per possession, not including and-1's and technical free-throws). Is this likely? Probably not, but who knows what this game will look like in 100 years..

Maybe we should look at standard deviations instead of absolute relative differences, as you mentioned looking at variance, to quantify how much of a statistical outliers the Lakers and Nuggets were in their respective season, otherwise we can't really compare. Especially since we, unfortunately, don't have on/off numbers for Magic.

Btw where do you get the +11 ORtg for Jokic? Nuggets without Jokic have a 106.9 ORtg, and 125.6 ORtg with him on the floor in 2023 during the RS according to BB-reference. Insane

+11 relative to league average with Jokic. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Yeah, all I am trying to do is add more puzzle pieces with this data.

[Red Beast]

But would that have been a good thing? Magic developed as a scorer over his career and certainly in 87 showed that he could step it up. I don't think he was held back, I think he picked his spots.



Who is faulting him? We're having a discussion about his greatness as an offensive centerpiece. The Lakers were a dominant, titanic offense in the 80s and an early adopter of the corner 3 (along with Boston, among others). They were perennially in contention as the best offense in the league, and then they were a surprise in Kareem's last year and the first year without him in leading the league offensively anyhow. Not really sure of the genesis of your notion here.

Isnt that my point?

In the Player Comparison board the games dont matter only the stats do.

If you have better stats you are the better player. Context be damned.

I think there is a lot more context to be taken from stats than....games. What is "games" even mean - who wins and loses? That is way more void of context than stats.

I mean are you really arguing that Magic having a good team held him back? Come on now.

I think it is pretty clear what he is saying unless you are trying hard not to understand.
Stats are accumulated within the context of the "game" or the "team" you play in. If you watch the "game" you can understand the stats better. Some will look at particular stats, without understanding context, and make determinations based solely, or predominantly, on that.

He clearly didn't mean that Magic's team held him back from being a good player. What is fairly obvious is that the level of quality around Magic would have an obvious effect on his statistics. The type of player he played with also is a significant factor.
For instance, Stockton playing with Malone enhances his statistics due to the two-man pick and roll game they play. Alternatively, Magic playing with Kareem or Worthy (in the half court) was quite different as he would invariably dump the ball to them in the post and let them go to work. While this doesn't make Magic any less of a player, it does mean that he would have little (obvious) statistical impact on that play.

Now, we can introduce a number of other statistics to throw more light on the subject but that still would not substitute for the watching of the "game". For example, what sort of defense were they playing? Were they double teaming a player? Were they fronting in the post? What were the matchups? What sort of offense were they playing? Were they crashing the offensive boards? Was someone playing injured? Did someone get a "hot hand"? These are significant factors and variables that affect the game and the stats the game produces. These can be seen instantly when watching a "game". This doesn't diminish the value of statistics as an understanding of the stats will also help to make us appreciate and understand what we see. But, I thought that was all obvious anyway.

[OhayoKD]

It's strange that people talk about the talent difference. If only Magic had played with comparable supporting casts to this Denver... but I guess 1989-91 didn't happen.

89-91 did happen. What didn't happen is the Lakers winning. Let alone going +8, +8, +6, +8 and 16-4 vs all-comers

[OhayoKD]

Isnt that my point?

In the Player Comparison board the games dont matter only the stats do.

If you have better stats you are the better player. Context be damned.

I think there is a lot more context to be taken from stats than....games. What is "games" even mean - who wins and loses? That is way more void of context than stats.

I mean are you really arguing that Magic having a good team held him back? Come on now.

I think it is pretty clear what he is saying unless you are trying hard not to understand.
Stats are accumulated within the context of the "game" or the "team" you play in. If you watch the "game" you can understand the stats better. Some will look at particular stats, without understanding context, and make determinations based solely, or predominantly, on that.

Now here's the part where you or warspite demonstrate that the context you're noting actually is influencing the stats they way you're asserting they do.

Anyone can give a spheal about stats vs eye-test. Your eye-test being useful is demonstrated by the first bit. Generally though, people who dismiss stats without doing the leg-work tend to be worse at using their eyes.

[trex_8063]

It's strange that people talk about the talent difference. If only Magic had played with comparable supporting casts to this Denver... but I guess 1989-91 didn't happen.

89-91 did happen. What didn't happen is the Lakers winning.

Well.....

They were IN the Finals TWO of those three years, falling to what are essentially all-time great opponents (both of them better than anyone Denver had to face this year).

AND none of those years was with the peak Magic version this thread refers to either. (i.e.: a non-peak Magic led similar [or arguably weaker??] supporting casts to the Finals more than once, losing to teams better than Denver had to face).


Not saying this tips things in Magic's favour (I'm somewhat leaning toward Jokic in the comparison, actually [remarkably!]). I just don't find the quoted to be a persuasive argument at all.

[Red Beast]

I think there is a lot more context to be taken from stats than....games. What is "games" even mean - who wins and loses? That is way more void of context than stats.

I mean are you really arguing that Magic having a good team held him back? Come on now.

I think it is pretty clear what he is saying unless you are trying hard not to understand.
Stats are accumulated within the context of the "game" or the "team" you play in. If you watch the "game" you can understand the stats better. Some will look at particular stats, without understanding context, and make determinations based solely, or predominantly, on that.

Now here's the part where you or warspite demonstrate that the context you're noting actually is influencing the stats they way you're asserting they do.

Anyone can give a spheal about stats vs eye-test. Your eye-test being useful is demonstrated by the first bit. Generally though, people who dismiss stats without doing the leg-work tend to be worse at using their eyes.

Who is dismissing stats? I know I didn't. In fact, I stated, "This doesn't diminish the value of statistics as an understanding of the stats will also help to make us appreciate and understand what we see."

If you think I was giving a "spiel" about stats vs eye-test, you have completely missed the point of my post. I was, in fact, trying to (without success obviously) assert that stats and eye-test are not mutually exclusive but complementary. More specifically, I was stating that watching games can help to provide context to stats and that stats alone may not paint an accurate picture of a player's value or ability. I don't think that this is controversial, but it is possible that others have a different view.

[70sFan]

It's strange that people talk about the talent difference. If only Magic had played with comparable supporting casts to this Denver... but I guess 1989-91 didn't happen.

89-91 did happen. What didn't happen is the Lakers winning. Let alone going +8, +8, +6, +8 and 16-4 vs all-comers

As trex stated, this is very weak argument from your part. We haven't seen Denver playing against any team even close to 1991 Bulls (and likely 1989 Pistons either). Then of course we should adjust for injuries that happened against this superior team as well.

[tsherkin]

It's strange that people talk about the talent difference. If only Magic had played with comparable supporting casts to this Denver... but I guess 1989-91 didn't happen.

TBF, I did specifically mention those seasons, and also discussed Kareem's downslope briefly.

[Warspite]

Isnt that my point?

I have no idea WHAT your point is. You started talking about Magic being held back for some reason (not sure what). Perhaps you could clarify?

Earlier in the thread posts were written that Magic was inferior because he wasnt scoring enough ppg. Im sure he could have but Pat Riley didnt want him to nor was it best for the team. Apon looking at the Lakers season I couldnt find but maybe a handful of games in which the Lakers lost due to Magics lack of scoring. IMHO Magic should have not been the leading scorer and 24ppg seems high. What is most impressive about Magic in 1987 is not in his stats but in his teammates FG%.

In 1987 Magic won the MVP and the question was asked if that was the greatest season a player had ever had. Then the question was if Magic was the greatest player of all time.

If Magics season was not as good as Jokic then why is that not being asked today about Jokic?

when I look at Jokic I see what Sabonis could have been.

[One_and_Done]

I watched a Magic passing video yesterday just to remind myself if Magic was really as good of a passer as I recall. He was better. Jokic is a great player, a great passer. He couldn't pass like Magic, and maybe nobody ever will again.

[tsherkin]

Earlier in the thread posts were written that Magic was inferior because he wasnt scoring enough ppg. Im sure he could have but Pat Riley didnt want him to nor was it best for the team. Apon looking at the Lakers season I couldnt find but maybe a handful of games in which the Lakers lost due to Magics lack of scoring. IMHO Magic should have not been the leading scorer and 24ppg seems high. What is most impressive about Magic in 1987 is not in his stats but in his teammates FG%.

Okay, I'm with you. That point makes sense, thank you for clarifying.

In 1987 Magic won the MVP and the question was asked if that was the greatest season a player had ever had. Then the question was if Magic was the greatest player of all time.

If Magics season was not as good as Jokic then why is that not being asked today about Jokic?

It is being asked, so this part, I don't understand so much.

when I look at Jokic I see what Sabonis could have been.

Arvydas was never this good, even before the knee injury.

[Cavsfansince84]

Earlier in the thread posts were written that Magic was inferior because he wasnt scoring enough ppg. Im sure he could have but Pat Riley didnt want him to nor was it best for the team. Apon looking at the Lakers season I couldnt find but maybe a handful of games in which the Lakers lost due to Magics lack of scoring. IMHO Magic should have not been the leading scorer and 24ppg seems high. What is most impressive about Magic in 1987 is not in his stats but in his teammates FG%.

In 1987 Magic won the MVP and the question was asked if that was the greatest season a player had ever had. Then the question was if Magic was the greatest player of all time.

If Magics season was not as good as Jokic then why is that not being asked today about Jokic?

when I look at Jokic I see what Sabonis could have been.

I don't think that question being asked by someone in the media back then really means much tbh. Its the same way we've been inundated with Jokic comparisons in the last week. Fans and the media always wildly overreact to whatever is going on in the moment. Having said that, the media worked so differently back then I don't really recall seeing much of any talk about Magic being the greatest of all time after 1987. Maybe some were saying it but I don't think it means much in hindsight.