Is Jokic on a Wilt type of career trajectory?

[Special_Puppy]

Side Note: I didn't realize how good Wilt's longevity was. 9th in total minutes played. Yes I know guys played more minutes per game back then, but nobody who entered the league before 1969 is ahead of him https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mp_career_c.html

[70sFan]

What you are able to replicate across time and what you do in different situations is relevant to a peak conversation, especially if as everyone here is saying, "the data is extremely limited"

That's fair point.

I guess by wins and srs gap which is fair enough. I was looking at srs was 1962 when Russell averaged 15 more minutes than anyone else but I've been a big advocate for not using raw srs.

That's fair, though I also had in mind the fact that the Celtics struggled in the postseason in 1962.

Either way, the main point is the superteam cast from the 50s faded out and the Celtics got better leaning way more on russell. And unlike the 67 Sixers there's little positive evidence for the early 60s team being stacked.

We have basically no evidence of how early 196s Celtics looked without Russell. In 1961-62, Russell missed a week and the Celtics lost all 4 games but they literally played without center and two of these games came against Chamberlain, who destroyed them.

I agree that the team got less talented in comparison to the league when the 1950s players faded out, though in 1962 they still had prime Heinsohn and fairly effective Ramsey off the bench.

By raw srs and record, but they were not a comparable outlier to the early 60s Celtics teams, not that a higher srs with (at least emperically) much better help is much of an argument for individual impact.

I don't think you realize how insane 1967 Sixers were. They started the season 46-4. That's 75 wins pace, literally the best start in the league history (repeated by 2016 Warriors). Better than 1996 Bulls, 1971 Bucks, 1972 Lakers. They crushed the league unlike any team before them (and arguably since) and they finished the year lightly because they had no record to chase.

Looking at SRS and concluding that Celtics teams in the early 1960s were more dominant is misleading. Not to mention that the Sixers were also dominant in the playoffs against relatively good competition, while Russell's best teams usually won on the rougher road against weaker teams.

[D.Brasco]

Side Note: I didn't realize how good Wilt's longevity was. 9th in total minutes played. Yes I know guys played more minutes per game back then, but nobody who entered the league before 1969 is ahead of him https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mp_career_c.html

He honestly could have had near Kareem level longevity had he wanted to stay in the league that long. He retired when he did from the NBA to play/coach for the ABA. Following that he literally became a great volleyball player and was still getting requests to come out of retirement from NBA teams until he was about 50.

Wilt was probably one of the first NBA players to make enough money to fully retire on his own terms.

[tsherkin]

Side Note: I didn't realize how good Wilt's longevity was. 9th in total minutes played. Yes I know guys played more minutes per game back then, but nobody who entered the league before 1969 is ahead of him https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mp_career_c.html

I mean, yeah, guys played more back then but to your point about his longevity... no one played minutes quite like Wilt. He was just perpetually on the court, like that season where he played OVER 48 mpg.

[Joao Saraiva]

Jokic isn't winning more cause he's not in the situation that allows him to win more.

Was that the case with Wilt? Could he have won more?

Jokic has impact, he's clearly the best player in the league.

However... OKC has talent all over the place. Lakers just became a juggernaut with Luka and LeBron. Celtics are super deep and talented. Cavs too, tough still a bit inexperienced. Besides Jokic... how do you see DEN vs the top teams?

Jokic is on his way to dominate individually like only Bron and MJ did in the modern era. That's how crazy good he's been. Yeah but he has Westbrook...

I can't even believe some people even say he's now stat padding. If the team loses people can't really not blame the star.

[benson13]

I consider Wilt a legit GOAT candidate, but I disagree with this comparison. Wilt was unquestionably the best player on the 67 Philly team. He was the league MVP that year, but he was fifth in scoring on his team in the Finals, and I'm not sure he would have been the Finals MVP if it had been around at the time. The guy never had that championship season that was dominant from end to end.

Jokic averaged 30-14-7 on good efficiency in the Finals and was clearly the best player in every series he played in that year.

[70sFan]

He was the league MVP that year, but he was fifth in scoring on his team in the Finals, and I'm not sure he would have been the Finals MVP if it had been around at the time. The guy never had that championship season that was dominant from end to end.

So you can't be dominant without scoring 20+ppg? Wilt was clearly the best player in the 1967 finals series.

Jokic averaged 30-14-7 on good efficiency in the Finals and was clearly the best player in every series he played in that year.

Jokic literally had a better teammate than Wilt, who arguably outplayed him in one series (Greer definitely didn't outplay Wilt at any point of the playoffs).

[sp6r=underrated]

I don't see much of a KG comp. 1 title, 1 wcf, 3 2nd rd losses and this year could be anything from a 1st rd loss to a title and I wouldn't be that surprised. That's way more success than KG had and I don't think the team is close what Minny was from 05-07.

Minnesota-KG and Denver-Jokic have less team success than you would expect based on their statistics and awards. Jokic's team did enjoy more success than KG but Jokic was far more awarded in Denver than KG was in Minnesota. Relative to awards, the gap between team success and individual decoration is roughly the same.

In both cases supporters point to really bad supporting casts as the reason. And in both cases their critics deny the supporting cast was bad enough to justify the relative lack of team success.

The Jokic/KG analogy makes sense though of course, KG never won a chip in Minny. Maybe a bit of Peyton Manning on the Colts?

NFL fans can correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not a huge NFL fan now and was very casual on the 00s.

My understanding of Peyton and Indy is NE was regarded as the slightly better team most of those years. However,the gap was very small and I remember Manning getting killed for some really, really awful playoff games. That could have been unfair but poster below seems to think of it.

Similar vibe to having a transcendent player on a special individual run and feeling disappointment over only managing one title out of it, yeah. Main difference being that Peyton personally carries a lot more blame for those postseason exits.

That was my understanding at the time from my football fan friends. Manning played genuinely bad in some playoff games.

If Durant ends up with a happy ending to his NBA career playing amazing in a new way with dominant champion, the parallels will be eerie. I don't expect that happens though.

I'll just expand on my Durant-Wilt comparison.

Lots of very smart people believe the two best teams of the 60s and 70s had only one thing in common, Wilt Chamberlain. Not only that he played very different roles on both teams. Lots of very smart people also believe he was the peak player based on stats/decoration.

Lots of very smart people believe Kevin Durant was the best player on the two best title teams this century. Lots of very smart people believe outside of Lebron, KD was the best player of his era based on stats/decoration. Even if you disagree with them the case isn't silly. They did play central roles on excellent teams. They did have absurd stats. They did win tons of awards.

Yet both players inspire similar critiques.
1. They should have won more if these players were as good as their supporters allege based on their supporting cast.
2. They were both coach killers.
3. They were destructive personalities and really immature. Wilt forcing his way off multiple teams and setting bizarre individual goals that weren't aligned with team objectives. Durant being chronically unhappy, in the later half of his career insisting on a role in management (which he was terrible at) and then forcing his way out when things got bad.
4. Their role on excellent teams is a bit overstated. The Warriors won titles before and after Durant left. The Lakers were making the finals before Wilt showed up.
5. Their role on disappoint teams is a bit underdiscussed. The Wilt-Warriors had disappointing years. Durant-Nets underacheived and Durant-Suns has been a total trainwreck.

I consider both ATGs but am in the negative camp. That said the case for them is strong which is what makes them fun discussion topics.
3. Most importantly, both approached a team sport as if it was an individual one.

Just gonna say if Houston's loss inspires them to acquire Durant (a real possibility) and they turn into an ATG champion (A small possibility) Durant is officially the 21st Century Wilt who will inspires countless arguments for decades.

[ty 4191]

That said, I don’t know that that’s mutually exclusive with the idea that Wilt in 1967 was incredibly impactful.

Agreed 100%. Very well said!

[ty 4191]

Greater trajectory.

I think there is less fluff and focus on individual numbers with Jokic, such that I think we come away thinking he had a better core prime than Wilt. Jokic has been used optimally throughout his athletic prime, while maybe you could argue there were a number of years throughout Wilt's where maybe you argue that was not the case.

Wilt gets great coaching that uses him properly, great teammates, and then (in his old age, especially for that era), suddenly wins .718 of his games during the entire second half of his career. His teams set the record for wins twice (two *different* teams, no less).

Coaches and GMs who either overtly disliked/hated and/or totally mismanaged Wilt.

-Neil Johnston
-Ed Gottlieb
-Frank McGuire
-Bob Feerick
-Dolph Schayes
-Butch Van Breda Kolff
-Fred Schaus

Coaches who understood him well, treated him well, and used him properly/to his full potential:

-Alex Hannum
-Bill Sharman

In 14 years he only had two coaches that ever understood him, and that he could count on. That's only 6 of his 14 seasons.

Here are his team’s records for 4 of those years:

1. 68-13 (set all time record for wins)
2. 62-20
3. 69-13 (set new all time record for wins, different team)
4..60-22

That's a .793 winning percentage for 4 years. On two different franchises!!!!

[ty 4191]

I mean, yeah, guys played more back then but to your point about his longevity... no one played minutes quite like Wilt. He was just perpetually on the court, like that season where he played OVER 48 mpg.

Absolutely insane!!! A guy 7'2", 290 lbs doing THIS! In the fastest paced NBA in history, no less!!

[ty 4191]

I mean, yeah, guys played more back then but to your point about his longevity... no one played minutes quite like Wilt. He was just perpetually on the court, like that season where he played OVER 48 mpg.

Wilt vs. all Centers, career:



HILARIOUS!!!!!! WAS WILT EVEN HUMAN!?!?!

[eminence]

Greater trajectory.

I think there is less fluff and focus on individual numbers with Jokic, such that I think we come away thinking he had a better core prime than Wilt. Jokic has been used optimally throughout his athletic prime, while maybe you could argue there were a number of years throughout Wilt's where maybe you argue that was not the case.

Wilt gets great coaching that uses him properly, great teammates, and then (in his old age, especially for that era), suddenly wins .718 of his games during the entire second half of his career. His teams set the record for wins twice (two *different* teams, no less).

Coaches and GMs who either overtly disliked/hated and/or totally mismanaged Wilt.

-Neil Johnston
-Ed Gottlieb
-Frank McGuire
-Bob Feerick
-Dolph Schayes
-Butch Van Breda Kolff
-Fred Schaus

Coaches who understood him well, treated him well, and used him properly/to his full potential:

-Alex Hannum
-Bill Sharman

In 14 years he only had two coaches that ever understood him, and that he could count on. That's only 6 of his 14 seasons.

Here are his team’s records for 4 of those years:

1. 68-13 (set all time record for wins)
2. 62-20
3. 69-13 (set new all time record for wins, different team)
4..60-22

That's a .793 winning percentage for 4 years. On two different franchises!!!!

What's that about running into a certain type folks in the morning vs running into them all day?

[ty 4191]

What's that about running into a certain type folks in the morning vs running into them all day?

???????