Jokić vs Hakeem

[70sFan]

You see, that's the problem we have in basketball discussion. You have two absolutely elite offensive players and you (rightfully) differentiate between them, but when it comes to defense you basically say that being "solid" is enough. I have seen this many times - defense doesn't matter as long as you are not a huge liability. No, that's not how basketball works - there is a lot of room between "solid" and "GOAT-level" defender and it's just not true that offensive gap is all that matters as long as you are solid on D.

Even if we assume that individual impact on defense is typically lower than on offense (which isn't a given, especially in cross-era comparisons), that doesn't mean that the difference between GOAT-level offensive player and all-nba level offensive player is more important than between GOAT-level defensive player and "solid" defender with very clearly exploitable weaknesses.

If I may jump in here...the underlined is, I think, where the disconnect is. You are framing them as equal, or at least on the same tier, as offensive players. I don't think they are. I think it's a pretty huge offensive gap between them, by the numbers.

Jokic, for the last five years at least, has been a much more efficient scorer than Hakeem ever was, and I'm just talking relative to league. Jokic's TS Adds for the last five seasons:

221.1
286.9
289.6
224.7
250.1

Hakeem only ever broke 100 TS Add twice, in 1993 and 1994.

In terms of volume, Jokic has marginal PER 100 edge there too...33.7pp100 RS and 37.2pp100 PO, to Hakeem's 30.3pp100 RS and 33.7pp100 PO. But efficiency is where Jokic blows Hakeem out of the water.

I grew up in the 90s with all the hype of Hakeem's offense, his footwork, the Dream Shake, all of it, but during the last Top 100 project, I realized for the first time that his numbers as a scorer, in terms of efficiency, are closer to Duncan and Garnett than they are to the Tier 1 offensive centers like Wilt or Kareem, and Jokic belongs in the second list. Even DRob - in the RS anyway - was much more efficient than Hakeem as a scorer.

And all of that is just scoring. Jokic might go down as the greatest playmaking center ever when all is said and done. For his career, he is at 11.2ap100(with 4.5 turnovers) RS and 10.1ap100(with 4.3 turnovers) PO, to Hakeem's 3.4ap100(with 4.1 turnovers) RS and 4.1ap100(with 3.8 turnovers) PO.

With all due respect, I think minimizing the gap offensively does a disservice to the debate.

All that said, the ultimate objective of the game is to win and, so far, Hakeem has accomplished more as a #1 option - two rings(94 and 95), one additional Finals appearance(86), and one addition WCF appearance(97), where Jokic has one ring(23) and one additional WCF appearance(20).

It seems that I didn't present my thoughts well if you came with that conclusion after reading my post, so I will try to do this again...

No, I don't think they are in the same tier offensively. Jokic is significantly better offensive player than Hakeem. I never suggested anything different than that. The gap is significant and I don't think any of my posts try to minimize the gap.

What I am trying to point out is that people focus on the offensive gap, even though we're still talking about two elite offensive players (one being clearly better than the other) while we ignore defensive gap because Jokic isn't as bad as you may think. With all respect, that won't work with me. I don't see any reason to believe that being "solid" is just fine against GOAT-level defender.

I am well aware of the offensive gap, but you can't just ignore defensive gap only because Jokic is "solid" defender - that's the main point of my previous post.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

You see, that's the problem we have in basketball discussion. You have two absolutely elite offensive players and you (rightfully) differentiate between them, but when it comes to defense you basically say that being "solid" is enough. I have seen this many times - defense doesn't matter as long as you are not a huge liability. No, that's not how basketball works - there is a lot of room between "solid" and "GOAT-level" defender and it's just not true that offensive gap is all that matters as long as you are solid on D.

Even if we assume that individual impact on defense is typically lower than on offense (which isn't a given, especially in cross-era comparisons), that doesn't mean that the difference between GOAT-level offensive player and all-nba level offensive player is more important than between GOAT-level defensive player and "solid" defender with very clearly exploitable weaknesses.

If I may jump in here...the underlined is, I think, where the disconnect is. You are framing them as equal, or at least on the same tier, as offensive players. I don't think they are. I think it's a pretty huge offensive gap between them, by the numbers.

Jokic, for the last five years at least, has been a much more efficient scorer than Hakeem ever was, and I'm just talking relative to league. Jokic's TS Adds for the last five seasons:

221.1
286.9
289.6
224.7
250.1

Hakeem only ever broke 100 TS Add twice, in 1993 and 1994.

In terms of volume, Jokic has marginal PER 100 edge there too...33.7pp100 RS and 37.2pp100 PO, to Hakeem's 30.3pp100 RS and 33.7pp100 PO. But efficiency is where Jokic blows Hakeem out of the water.

I grew up in the 90s with all the hype of Hakeem's offense, his footwork, the Dream Shake, all of it, but during the last Top 100 project, I realized for the first time that his numbers as a scorer, in terms of efficiency, are closer to Duncan and Garnett than they are to the Tier 1 offensive centers like Wilt or Kareem, and Jokic belongs in the second list. Even DRob - in the RS anyway - was much more efficient than Hakeem as a scorer.

And all of that is just scoring. Jokic might go down as the greatest playmaking center ever when all is said and done. For his career, he is at 11.2ap100(with 4.5 turnovers) RS and 10.1ap100(with 4.3 turnovers) PO, to Hakeem's 3.4ap100(with 4.1 turnovers) RS and 4.1ap100(with 3.8 turnovers) PO.

With all due respect, I think minimizing the gap offensively does a disservice to the debate.

All that said, the ultimate objective of the game is to win and, so far, Hakeem has accomplished more as a #1 option - two rings(94 and 95), one additional Finals appearance(86), and one addition WCF appearance(97), where Jokic has one ring(23) and one additional WCF appearance(20).

It seems that I didn't present my thoughts well if you came with that conclusion after reading my post, so I will try to do this again...

No, I don't think they are in the same tier offensively. Jokic is significantly better offensive player than Hakeem. I never suggested anything different than that. The gap is significant and I don't think any of my posts try to minimize the gap.

What I am trying to point out is that people focus on the offensive gap, even though we're still talking about two elite offensive players (one being clearly better than the other) while we ignore defensive gap because Jokic isn't as bad as you may think. With all respect, that won't work with me. I don't see any reason to believe that being "solid" is just fine against GOAT-level defender.

I am well aware of the offensive gap, but you can't just ignore defensive gap only because Jokic is "solid" defender - that's the main point of my previous post.

I understand what you're saying. The ultimate question then is that of the gap between Hakeem's offense and Jokic's defense. That's the big, tough question. Is Hakeem, by the numbers, really that much better on offense than Jokic is on defense? I don't have a clear answer but I think it's worth debating.

For the record though, as of right now in 2025, I have Hakeem higher on my all-time list. Jokic could surpass him if he wins another ring or two.

[70sFan]

If I may jump in here...the underlined is, I think, where the disconnect is. You are framing them as equal, or at least on the same tier, as offensive players. I don't think they are. I think it's a pretty huge offensive gap between them, by the numbers.

Jokic, for the last five years at least, has been a much more efficient scorer than Hakeem ever was, and I'm just talking relative to league. Jokic's TS Adds for the last five seasons:

221.1
286.9
289.6
224.7
250.1

Hakeem only ever broke 100 TS Add twice, in 1993 and 1994.

In terms of volume, Jokic has marginal PER 100 edge there too...33.7pp100 RS and 37.2pp100 PO, to Hakeem's 30.3pp100 RS and 33.7pp100 PO. But efficiency is where Jokic blows Hakeem out of the water.

I grew up in the 90s with all the hype of Hakeem's offense, his footwork, the Dream Shake, all of it, but during the last Top 100 project, I realized for the first time that his numbers as a scorer, in terms of efficiency, are closer to Duncan and Garnett than they are to the Tier 1 offensive centers like Wilt or Kareem, and Jokic belongs in the second list. Even DRob - in the RS anyway - was much more efficient than Hakeem as a scorer.

And all of that is just scoring. Jokic might go down as the greatest playmaking center ever when all is said and done. For his career, he is at 11.2ap100(with 4.5 turnovers) RS and 10.1ap100(with 4.3 turnovers) PO, to Hakeem's 3.4ap100(with 4.1 turnovers) RS and 4.1ap100(with 3.8 turnovers) PO.

With all due respect, I think minimizing the gap offensively does a disservice to the debate.

All that said, the ultimate objective of the game is to win and, so far, Hakeem has accomplished more as a #1 option - two rings(94 and 95), one additional Finals appearance(86), and one addition WCF appearance(97), where Jokic has one ring(23) and one additional WCF appearance(20).

It seems that I didn't present my thoughts well if you came with that conclusion after reading my post, so I will try to do this again...

No, I don't think they are in the same tier offensively. Jokic is significantly better offensive player than Hakeem. I never suggested anything different than that. The gap is significant and I don't think any of my posts try to minimize the gap.

What I am trying to point out is that people focus on the offensive gap, even though we're still talking about two elite offensive players (one being clearly better than the other) while we ignore defensive gap because Jokic isn't as bad as you may think. With all respect, that won't work with me. I don't see any reason to believe that being "solid" is just fine against GOAT-level defender.

I am well aware of the offensive gap, but you can't just ignore defensive gap only because Jokic is "solid" defender - that's the main point of my previous post.

I understand what you're saying. The ultimate question then is that of the gap between Hakeem's offense and Jokic's defense. That's the big, tough question. Is Hakeem, by the numbers, really that much better on offense than Jokic is on defense? I don't have a clear answer but I think it's worth debating.

For the record though, as of right now in 2025, I have Hakeem higher on my all-time list. Jokic could surpass him if he wins another ring or two.

Well I think it's very clear that Hakeem's offense is better than Jokic's defense. Hakeem is an offensive star, capable of leading strong offenses in postseason - even with all his offensives weaknesses. Jokic is someone who can be valuable against certain opponents and within certain schemes, but he's not a player you can build a solid defense around and his defensive weaknesses are significantly more problematic than Hakeem's offensive limitations.

[kcktiny]

I think Jokic is actually a pretty solid defender.

You just "think" this? Or do you have any supporting evidence?

Because the evidence I see at stats.nba.com routinely/annually shows Jokic allowing a relatively high/poor FG% <10' from the basket.

And shot defense is - by far - the major component of a big man's defense. Not defensive rebounding, not steals/offensive fouls drawn (rare exceptions), not deflections.

other things he does beyond rim protection—particularly his GOAT-level impact on defensive rebounding—make a big difference

Wrong. Shot defense is the key factor in big man defense. It's not even close.

And where do you get off calling Jokic's defensive rebounding goat level? The decade he's been in the league there are some ten other Cs in the league that rebounded on a per minute basis at rates better than Jokic.

I don't see you arguing for Nikola Vucevic or Andre Drummond or Jonas Valanciunas or Clint Capela as solid defenders just because of their defensive rebounding. Why just Jokic?

[lessthanjake]

In general, an individual PC board poster will be more knowledgeable than the average basketball fan, but there’s wisdom in crowds and the PC board is a very small group of people.

True, the thing is that despite what you say the crowd doesn't really tell us that Jokic is clearly better than Hakeem.

Moreover, these are ultimately pretty subjective questions, so there’s a judgment aspect to it that goes beyond simple knowledge of facts.

Well, it's not me saying that one player peaked clearly ahead of the other...

I think you’re arguing a bit of a straw man. I literally said “To me it is [clear]” that Jokic peaked ahead of Hakeem. That “to me” language pretty obviously leaves room for others to disagree with that assessment, and I think you’re arguing as if I suggested my view is inarguably correct. Someone doesn’t say “To me it is” if they’re trying to assert something is inarguably true. And more generally, even without qualifying something by saying “to me,” any opinion I present here is obviously implicitly my own opinion using my own judgment, rather than being an assertion that no one’s judgment could possibly lead them in the other direction. I think you’ll find that I’ve actually butted heads with people here a lot in discussions about what the “highest reasonable ranking” or “lowest reasonable ranking” for someone could be, because I tend to take a particularly broad view of what the realm of reasonableness is. Putting peak Hakeem above peak Jokic is something I’d disagree with, but I also think it is well within the very broad realm of reasonableness. A lot of people think their own view is the only reasonable view. I think that’s definitely not the case when talking about things that are inherently pretty subjective and only subject to flawed data. So I think you’re ascribing far too much of a categorical statement out of things I’ve said in this thread.

So, I think a few things:

- Jokic is in the GOAT-tier in terms of offense, and that is a very large difference with Hakeem, even though Hakeem was a good offensive player. It’s akin to comparing Jokic’s offense to someone like Giannis—who is simultaneously a very good offensive player but also far off from Jokic, such that Jokic is better overall despite a significant gap defensively. (Not that Giannis and Hakeem are comparable in terms of how they play or anything, but it’s just a very general analogy of the type of situation this is IMO).

- I think Jokic is actually a pretty solid defender. Definitely not at Hakeem’s level, but the other things he does beyond rim protection—particularly his GOAT-level impact on defensive rebounding—make a big difference. When combined with the fact that individual impact at the highest end is generally notably higher for offense than for defense (at least when we move past earlier decades of the NBA that aren’t relevant to this discussion), I don’t find it difficult to conclude that Jokic is a superior player despite not being as good defensively.

You see, that's the problem we have in basketball discussion. You have two absolutely elite offensive players and you (rightfully) differentiate between them, but when it comes to defense you basically say that being "solid" is enough. I have seen this many times - defense doesn't matter as long as you are not a huge liability. No, that's not how basketball works - there is a lot of room between "solid" and "GOAT-level" defender and it's just not true that offensive gap is all that matters as long as you are solid on D.

Even if we assume that individual impact on defense is typically lower than on offense (which isn't a given, especially in cross-era comparisons), that doesn't mean that the difference between GOAT-level offensive player and all-nba level offensive player is more important than between GOAT-level defensive player and "solid" defender with very clearly exploitable weaknesses.

I really don’t think you’re adequately internalizing the “even if we assume individual impact on defense is typically lower than on offense” part of this. Impact data tells us that the peak individual impact on offense is quite a bit higher than the peak defensive impact. Which ends up meaning that the difference between a GOAT-level offensive player and an all-NBA level offensive player really is often similar or bigger than the difference between a GOAT-level defensive player and a solid defender. Just to throw out some general numbers we see in impact data as a whole in order to illustrate this (the specific numbers matter less here than the concept), GOAT-level offensive players peak out around +7 or +8 in offensive impact while garden-variety all-NBA players tend to be around a +3 or +4 in offensive impact. Meanwhile, GOAT-level defensive players peak out around +4 or +5, while a solid defensive player might be around +1 or +2. Given this sort of thing, it should be pretty easy to conceptualize how a player like Jokic could be more impactful than someone like Hakeem, even if we assume Hakeem was a GOAT-level defender and all-NBA level offensive player (which, again, I have my doubts that that combination is really correct, given some of the impact data we have for Hakeem).

- In my opinion, this conclusion is buttressed by Hakeem’s pretty middling impact numbers. I don’t have a super high degree of confidence in this because the data we have from back then (i.e. things like Squared’s RAPM, Engelmann’s quarter-by-quarter RAPM-proxy, the early play-by-play data, etc.) is far from complete, but Hakeem’s data doesn’t look particularly great. His WOWYR looks a bit better than the RAPM snippets, but not good enough to bolster a case against prime Jokic. I tend to think that if Hakeem’s combination of offense and defense were really as good as people here often like to suggest, then that data would very likely look better.

I can see that, although I don't think we have anything that has enough sample to make a clear conclusion from these data points.

I agree we cannot take a clear conclusion from the data we have, but ultimately this is all an exercise in assigning how likely different conclusions are to be correct, and the data we have for Hakeem certainly makes me think the conclusion that you have about Hakeem is not particularly likely to be true, even if I don’t think the data is reliable enough to be conclusive on that.

- In most comparison with Hakeem, the response to this sort of stuff is mostly to say “Yeah, but Hakeem was an amazing playoff performer.” And in a lot of comparisons, that actually would be enough to sway me! There’s plenty of players I’d put below Hakeem, despite thinking they were more impactful regular-season players, because I think Hakeem performed notably better in the playoffs than they did. However, as I’ve mentioned, I don’t think that can rescue Hakeem in a comparison with Jokic—who is also an amazing playoff performer.

I'm not going to try to poke holes in Jokic's postseason performance because he's certainly great there, but again - just because both players play well in postseason doesn't mean we can't differentiate between their greatness.

I also want to point out that since you used impact metrics before, Jokic's postseason profile doesn't look really that good.

As I’ve said many times, pure impact data in the postseason is basically garbage, because the off samples are too small (and, because star players play more minutes in the playoffs, the off samples are an abnormally high percent garbage time, which makes it even worse). Impact data is better than box data if we have a decent-sized sample, but it’s definitely worse if we don’t. I don’t see any contradiction between emphasizing regular season impact data and not doing so for the playoffs. In fact, I think that’s the most reasonable approach. All the impact data for Hakeem that I referred to have a larger sample size than what we have for Jokic in the playoffs, though I grant that the Squared sample isn’t exactly orders of magnitude bigger.

[f4p]

i think hakeem's offense is clearly better than jokic's defense. hakeem floor-raised a very offensively-weak 1994 rockets team to a title and then was the hub of a very good 1995 postseason offense (with better offensive personnel this time).

on the other hand, i'm not sure if jokic's offense isn't just that much better than hakeem's defense. while big men traditionally get a lot of value from defense (and hakeem played in a good era for that), stars seemingly are so important as offensive hubs and jokic is basically re-writing what we thought was possible for a big man. you're not supposed to be a 70 TS% high volume scorer who also happens to be the best passer in the league. and who seemingly isn't bothered by good defenders, big moments, or playoff defense. it's so hard to keep denver from having a good offensive possession every time down the court. but obviously hakeem was affecting tons of stuff on defense. ultimately, jokic is going to need to keep this up and win some more (even if not necessarily titles) and also get rid of the one big disappointment he's had, which is losing a 20 point lead in game 7 last year. while basically forgetting how to shoot for the first time in about 5 years. but right now that's a blemish more than a permanent scar because jamal murray basically played like a replacement player last year and jokic was never winning a title with that murray.

[f4p]

All the impact data for Hakeem that I referred to have a larger sample size than what we have for Jokic in the playoffs, though I grant that the Squared sample isn’t exactly orders of magnitude bigger.

while i applaud anyone going through the trouble of getting us plus/minus data, aren't hakeems samples from 1985, 1988, 1991, and 1996? like it obviously wasn't intentional but that's pretty much a greatest hits of hakeem's worst hits. his rookie year, pretty much never going to help anyone's career averages. 1991, the one year the rockets looked good without him and a statistical nadir. 1996 when he was losing athleticism and missing the whole 1993-1995 peak. i guess 1988 is fine but even that misses arguably his 2 best defensive seasons in 1989 and 1990. while i suspect hakeem would be more in the luka vein of someone i think is immensely impactful, especially in the postseason, without having great impact numbers, those 4 years definitely aren't doing hakeem any favors (certainly some people look great in those impact numbers without actually being as good as those numbers would say).

[lessthanjake]

I think Jokic is actually a pretty solid defender.

You just "think" this? Or do you have any supporting evidence?

Because the evidence I see at stats.nba.com routinely/annually shows Jokic allowing a relatively high/poor FG% <10' from the basket.

And shot defense is - by far - the major component of a big man's defense. Not defensive rebounding, not steals/offensive fouls drawn (rare exceptions), not deflections.

How about the 28-year RAPM that has Jokic as a +2 defender in terms of DRAPM? How does Jokic have that kind of impact? Well, that same 28-year RAPM tells us that Jokic is literally tied for best player in the play-by-play era in terms of his impact on his team’s defensive rebounding. You can act like shot defense is the only important thing, but if someone has a +5.2% effect on his team’s defensive rebounding (which is what that 28-year RAPM estimates for Jokic), that is undeniably an extremely big deal.

And we don’t have to just look at 28-year RAPM for this. If we take smaller spans, Jokic has ranged from +0.6 to +2.5 in 5-year DRAPM according to the NBArapm website (with most of his 5-year values being closer to the top of that range).

These are values that are noticeably below history’s elite rim protectors, but is more than enough to qualify as a “solid” defender. For instance, Kawhi’s 28-year DRAPM is +2.3. Tatum’s is +2.5. Jrue Holiday’s is +2.1. Jimmy Butler’s is +2.0. Horace Grant’s is +2.0. And, again, Jokic’s is +2.0. If anything, “solid” may be underselling it. And if you’re unable to conceptualize why that might be, then I’d urge you to actually pay attention to rebounds when you watch basketball.

other things he does beyond rim protection—particularly his GOAT-level impact on defensive rebounding—make a big difference

Wrong. Shot defense is the key factor in big man defense. It's not even close.

Shot defense being the biggest single factor in defense is not mutually exclusive with defensive rebounding being incredibly important. If Jokic were a great rim protector on top of how good he is at rebounding, then he’d be a GOAT-level defender! The fact that he’s very far from being a great rim protector is what makes him merely a good defender.

And where do you get off calling Jokic's defensive rebounding goat level? The decade he's been in the league there are some ten other Cs in the league that rebounded on a per minute basis at rates better than Jokic.

As I explained above, on the NBArapm website, we have 28-year RAPM (i.e. 1997-2024) that actually parses out the impact by the player’s impact on different components of the game, including on eFG%, turnover rate, FT rate, and rebounding percentage. And, according to that measure, Jokic is tied for the best impact on his team’s defensive rebounding rate of any player in the last 28 years. So yeah, I’d say Jokic has a very good claim to having “GOAT-level impact on defensive rebounding.”

You cite to rebounding numbers, but Jokic individually has the 12th highest defensive rebounding rate in NBA history (with data starting in 1973-74). And that data actually doesn’t get to the full question on team impact in defensive rebounds, since you can have a big effect on defensive rebounds by boxing out your man while a teammate actually gets the rebound. Overall, we can see in the data that Jokic’s effect on defensive rebounding is incredible.

I don't see you arguing for Nikola Vucevic or Andre Drummond or Jonas Valanciunas or Clint Capela as solid defenders just because of their defensive rebounding. Why just Jokic?

I’m not arguing about how good those guys are on defense because they’re not the subject of the thread…?

Anyways, Capela is a pretty good defender too. As for the others you mentioned, none of them have quite the impact on their team’s defensive rebounding that Jokic has, and most of them have inferior impact in terms of forcing turnovers and are actually even worse in their impact on opponents’ eFG%. In other words, they’re mostly players that are in a similar mold to Jokic defensively, but simply a worse version of it. Which shouldn’t be a difficult concept to understand. NBA history is filled with players that are similar to each other but with one player just being better.

[lessthanjake]

It seems that I didn't present my thoughts well if you came with that conclusion after reading my post, so I will try to do this again...

No, I don't think they are in the same tier offensively. Jokic is significantly better offensive player than Hakeem. I never suggested anything different than that. The gap is significant and I don't think any of my posts try to minimize the gap.

What I am trying to point out is that people focus on the offensive gap, even though we're still talking about two elite offensive players (one being clearly better than the other) while we ignore defensive gap because Jokic isn't as bad as you may think. With all respect, that won't work with me. I don't see any reason to believe that being "solid" is just fine against GOAT-level defender.

I am well aware of the offensive gap, but you can't just ignore defensive gap only because Jokic is "solid" defender - that's the main point of my previous post.

I understand what you're saying. The ultimate question then is that of the gap between Hakeem's offense and Jokic's defense. That's the big, tough question. Is Hakeem, by the numbers, really that much better on offense than Jokic is on defense? I don't have a clear answer but I think it's worth debating.

For the record though, as of right now in 2025, I have Hakeem higher on my all-time list. Jokic could surpass him if he wins another ring or two.

Well I think it's very clear that Hakeem's offense is better than Jokic's defense. Hakeem is an offensive star, capable of leading strong offenses in postseason - even with all his offensives weaknesses. Jokic is someone who can be valuable against certain opponents and within certain schemes, but he's not a player you can build a solid defense around and his defensive weaknesses are significantly more problematic than Hakeem's offensive limitations.

I’m not sure I disagree with the first sentence you wrote here, but the idea that you can’t build “a solid defense” around Jokic seems obviously wrong. The Nuggets were a -2.3 rDRTG team last season (ranked 8th in the NBA), and in their last two playoffs, their average rDRTG per playoff series has been -3.2. And that’s with a team that isn’t defensively slanted (they’re giving max contracts to Jamal Murray and MPJ—not noted defenders). I don’t think Jokic is such a great defender that he makes your defense really good on his own. But you can certainly build a solid defense around him, since it’s already occurred before. And I don’t think we’ve really mined the depths of how good a defense could be with him, since he doesn’t exactly have some amazing defensive supporting cast.

[lessthanjake]

All the impact data for Hakeem that I referred to have a larger sample size than what we have for Jokic in the playoffs, though I grant that the Squared sample isn’t exactly orders of magnitude bigger.

while i applaud anyone going through the trouble of getting us plus/minus data, aren't hakeems samples from 1985, 1988, 1991, and 1996? like it obviously wasn't intentional but that's pretty much a greatest hits of hakeem's worst hits. his rookie year, pretty much never going to help anyone's career averages. 1991, the one year the rockets looked good without him and a statistical nadir. 1996 when he was losing athleticism and missing the whole 1993-1995 peak. i guess 1988 is fine but even that misses arguably his 2 best defensive seasons in 1989 and 1990. while i suspect hakeem would be more in the luka vein of someone i think is immensely impactful, especially in the postseason, without having great impact numbers, those 4 years definitely aren't doing hakeem any favors (certainly some people look great in those impact numbers without actually being as good as those numbers would say).

There’s data from 1987, 1990, and 1993 in that Squared sample as well. Not sure exactly how much there is for Hakeem in each year, but the description on Squared’s website says: “here is a snapshot from the 1985 through 1996 NBA seasons, focused on the 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1996 seasons.”

I’m definitely not ruling out the idea that Hakeem could be better than that data suggests. It’s incomplete data, and even complete RAPM data isn’t perfect! But we also have some other data that’s broadly consistent with this. Engelmann’s quarter-by-quarter RAPM-proxy for the 1990s is even less charitable to Hakeem, and Hakeem’s actual RAPM starting from 1997 doesn’t look very good either (though I’d say that’s only really one year where he’s still in his prime). His WOWYR is good, but still not nearly as high on him as this board is (I think it has him like 20th all time).

I think you make a very good analogy with Luka regarding Hakeem. I tend to think you’re right about that. And it’s enough for me to put Hakeem above a lot of guys who I think probably had better regular season impact. But I can’t really look at amazing playoff performance as a differentiator in a comparison with Jokic, because Jokic is such a great playoff performer himself.

[capfan33]

You can definitely build a good defense around jokic but his limitations are also a major problem in most playoff matchups. Kind of like Dirk except he’s even more awkward to build around defensively.

[Johnny Tomala]

Hakeem is 8th all time in my ranking, Jokić not in top 15. Hakeem clears.

[lessthanjake]

You can definitely build a good defense around jokic but his limitations are also a major problem in most playoff matchups. Kind of like Dirk except he’s even more awkward to build around defensively.

I don’t know that it’s really *that* hard to build around. You basically just want a guy at PF who can be a roaming rim protector (akin to the Giannis role on defense). That’s not a unicorn. While Aaron Gordon is a good player, he doesn’t give you that, so he’s not an ideal fit with Jokic defensively (though he synergizes well on offense, so they work pretty well overall). If Jokic had a good rim protector with him (someone in the mold of Evan Mobley or Jaren Jackson Jr., perhaps?) and some solid wing/guard defenders, do we really think they couldn’t be a really good defense? You’d have good rim protection and fantastic rebounding.

[atlantabbq99]

Hakeem is 8th all time in my ranking, Jokić not in top 15. Hakeem clears.

I do have Hakeem in my top 10 but I also have Jokic in the top 15...

Kobe
Dr J
Bird
Oscar
Jokic
Moses

I have Jokic and Moses fighting for #15. But if Jokic gets one more ring, then he could easily go to #11 or #10.

[kcktiny]

How about the 28-year RAPM that has Jokic as a +2 defender in terms of DRAPM?

Do you even know how these plus/minus variations are calculated? You do realize there is NO component for individual player shot defense. None, zero, zip, nada.

They use on/off point differential and box score data. That's it.

So before you flaunt what you think is definitive proof that your defensive analytic metric is some sort of gospel, learn what it does - and does not - measure.

You can act like shot defense is the only important thing

Never said this. Don't put words into the mouths of others to try to validate your erroneous valuation.

I said shot defense is by far the most important factor in defense, in particular big man defense. Try reading the "Chamberlain explains why he's greater than Jordan" thread.

if someone has a +5.2% effect on his team’s defensive rebounding... that is undeniably an extremely big deal.

Wrong. Defensive rebounding is after the fact. Does nothing for when your opponent's shot actually goes in.

Shot defense being the biggest single factor in defense is not mutually exclusive with defensive rebounding being incredibly important.

Wrong - again. Shot defense is by far the most important factor on defense.

If Jokic were a great rim protector on top of how good he is at rebounding, then he’d be a GOAT-level defender!

And if Manute Bol was a Wilt Chamberlain level rebounder he'd be a goat level defender too! (note the exclamation point too)

But he wasn't was he? Not even close.

And Jokic is not even close as a rim protector. He is in fact a poor rim protector for a C. You want to know how poor? Pathetically bad this 2024-25 season:

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/defense-dash-lt6?CF=FGA_LT_06*GE*200&PerMode=Totals&PlayerPosition=C&dir=A&sort=LT_06_PCT

Stats.nba.com C shot defense data <6' from the basket. Among the 46 Cs having faced 200+ FGAs <6' of the basket, the range is 48.2% to 69.0% allowed, and Jokic is the 6th highest/worst at 65.0% allowed (335/515).

The fact that he’s very far from being a great rim protector is what makes him merely a good defender.

Only in your delirium.

As I explained above, on the NBArapm website, we have 28-year RAPM... And, according to that measure

You seriously need to learn what this metric does and does not measure. It does NOT measure the most important factor for individual big man defense - shot defense.

You can throw those RAPM numbers around all you want as if you are saying something intelligent about player defense. You are not. They do not measure individual player shot defense.

they’re mostly players that are in a similar mold to Jokic defensively, but simply a worse version of it. Which shouldn’t be a difficult concept to understand.

Wow. Thanks for those words of wisdom.

You know what else shouldn't be a very difficult concept to understand? That the metric you keep quoting as a measure of defense to try to prop your boy up as some sort of equivalent to the great two-way Cs in league history does NOT measure the one key defensive factor your boy Jokic has routinely/annually be quite poor at.

[migya]

It's a stronger case for Jokic, anyway. It does depend on how highly you rate offense v. defense and what you think of Hakeem's ability to pass out of the post and create for his teammates (which he greatly improved at over the course of his career).

Rockets did make alot of threes in Olajuwon's career AND that happened because of the double teams on Olajuwon and he passed to those shooters more often than not. I never understood the talk of Olajuwon not passing well.

He was pretty simplistic in his reads and it took a while, and a new coach who made life simpler for him, in order for his efficacy to be there. It isn't surprising, given how late he came to the game. The amount he DID improve over time is quite impressive overall, including his shooting ability. Olajuwon was very, very fond of doing what people grill Kobe for, though: attacking double- and triple-teams and taking heavily-contested fadeaways. It's part of why his offensive efficiency was resilient into the playoffs but frequently not THAT stunning: he was getting the same kinds of shots because those were what the defense wanted to give him anyway.

He didn't develop into an alltime great passer among Centers but with what he had to work with, which was little spacing before Smith and Maxwell arrived there, he managed well. He didn't create like Jokic off passing but he Thorpe got much off his scoring from Olajuwon and so did the shooters. That Houston team was all Olajuwon and created from him, it's a clear fact. Jokic's passing is the best among Centers ever but Olajuwon was quite good.

[migya]

A comparison of Admiral Robinson and Jokic is a good one also:

Their primes are relatively similar length, Robinson a little more including 1999-2001. Many will state playoff performance, which is quite significant, but Robinson was an elite scorer compared to his alltime great peers (Olajuwon, Shaq, KMalone, Barkley, Jordan) and was a very good passer. His defense obviously is alltime great and the "metrics" are very good with him.

[lessthanjake]

How about the 28-year RAPM that has Jokic as a +2 defender in terms of DRAPM?

Do you even know how these plus/minus variations are calculated? You do realize there is NO component for individual player shot defense. None, zero, zip, nada.

They use on/off point differential and box score data. That's it.

So before you flaunt what you think is definitive proof that your defensive analytic metric is some sort of gospel, learn what it does - and does not - measure.

Umm…yeah, I know exactly what it measures. And measuring overall defensive impact (which is what RAPM does) is obviously superior to just looking at one aspect of defense. Measuring overall defensive impact inherently includes measuring a player’s impact on individual shot defense. It also just is measuring the effect of all other aspects of defense too—which is obviously a better way to measure someone’s overall quality on defense than just looking at one aspect of defense, even the most important one.

You can act like shot defense is the only important thing

Never said this. Don't put words into the mouths of others to try to validate your erroneous valuation.

This is particularly odd response given that it comes immediately after you seemingly just objected that RAPM doesn’t specifically measure “individual player shot defense.” It’s also what you focused on in your prior post, and what you spend the rest of this post talking about over and over. If you don’t think individual shot defense is the only important thing, then you might perhaps be able to see that Jokic is actually a pretty good defender.

if someone has a +5.2% effect on his team’s defensive rebounding... that is undeniably an extremely big deal.

Wrong. Defensive rebounding is after the fact. Does nothing for when your opponent's shot actually goes in.

Umm…A lot of shots don’t go in but the other team’s possession doesn’t end if they rebound their own miss, so if you have a huge effect on whether your team actually rebounds the other team’s missed shots, then that is a really big deal for defense. I’m struggling to see how it’s possible for you not to understand and acknowledge this.

Shot defense being the biggest single factor in defense is not mutually exclusive with defensive rebounding being incredibly important.

Wrong - again. Shot defense is by far the most important factor on defense.

Please read what I said again. Your response is a non-sequitur that in no way asserts something that suggests what I said is wrong. You’re either trolling or making very poorly thought out responses. Again, shot defense being the most important factor on defense doesn’t mean defensive rebounding isn’t super important too.

If Jokic were a great rim protector on top of how good he is at rebounding, then he’d be a GOAT-level defender!

And if Manute Bol was a Wilt Chamberlain level rebounder he'd be a goat level defender too! (note the exclamation point too)

But he wasn't was he? Not even close.

And Jokic is not even close as a rim protector. He is in fact a poor rim protector for a C. You want to know how poor? Pathetically bad this 2024-25 season:

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/defense-dash-lt6?CF=FGA_LT_06*GE*200&PerMode=Totals&PlayerPosition=C&dir=A&sort=LT_06_PCT

Stats.nba.com C shot defense data <6' from the basket. Among the 46 Cs having faced 200+ FGAs <6' of the basket, the range is 48.2% to 69.0% allowed, and Jokic is the 6th highest/worst at 65.0% allowed (335/515).

And that’s why Jokic isn’t a GOAT-tier defender, but merely is a pretty good one. He’s somewhere between really good and GOAT-tier at every aspect of defense except the aspect of defense that is the most important. That ends up shaking out to him being a pretty good defender overall, as we can clearly see from RAPM data which indicates his overall defensive impact is good. You have no meaningful response to this except to basically just repeat “But, but, but, shot defense!” I think I’ve been down this road with you before in the past, and it appears to just be a hopeless endeavor to make you have any understanding of the overall picture on defense beyond the talking point you really want to repeat.

As I explained above, on the NBArapm website, we have 28-year RAPM... And, according to that measure

You seriously need to learn what this metric does and does not measure. It does NOT measure the most important factor for individual big man defense - shot defense.

You can throw those RAPM numbers around all you want as if you are saying something intelligent about player defense. You are not. They do not measure individual player shot defense.

Umm…again, I know exactly what RAPM is. And it measures overall defensive impact, which of course includes the impact someone gets from their shot defense, as well as the impact from other aspects of defense too. The fact that Jokic isn’t good at shot defense but still has good overall defensive impact just means he’s got great impact at the other aspects of defense such that it more than makes up for the shot defense. Curiously, you seem incapable of comprehending that, despite it being a fairly simple concept.

they’re mostly players that are in a similar mold to Jokic defensively, but simply a worse version of it. Which shouldn’t be a difficult concept to understand.

Wow. Thanks for those words of wisdom.

You know what else shouldn't be a very difficult concept to understand? That the metric you keep quoting as a measure of defense to try to prop your boy up as some sort of equivalent to the great two-way Cs in league history does NOT measure the one key defensive factor your boy Jokic has routinely/annually be quite poor at.

I think you have to be trolling. But, again, RAPM measures defensive impact in general, so it obviously measures the effect of shot defense. Jokic is just a pretty good defender overall—something that you just appear to be unable or unwilling to comprehend.

[f4p]

As I’ve said many times, pure impact data in the postseason is basically garbage, because the off samples are too small (and, because star players play more minutes in the playoffs, the off samples are an abnormally high percent garbage time, which makes it even worse). Impact data is better than box data if we have a decent-sized sample, but it’s definitely worse if we don’t. I don’t see any contradiction between emphasizing regular season impact data and not doing so for the playoffs. In fact, I think that’s the most reasonable approach. All the impact data for Hakeem that I referred to have a larger sample size than what we have for Jokic in the playoffs, though I grant that the Squared sample isn’t exactly orders of magnitude bigger.

Mmm, not buying that. A metric that doesn't count in the most important time of year is a metric that can't be used.

Jokic had notably terrible playoff on/off.the 4 years before last (with only a +2 even in his championship year). It's one data point amdist others that are good/great and he did well last year, but it wasn't trivially bad or a one off. If he keeps it up and also doesn't win any more titles, it will have to be used against him.

[lessthanjake]

As I’ve said many times, pure impact data in the postseason is basically garbage, because the off samples are too small (and, because star players play more minutes in the playoffs, the off samples are an abnormally high percent garbage time, which makes it even worse). Impact data is better than box data if we have a decent-sized sample, but it’s definitely worse if we don’t. I don’t see any contradiction between emphasizing regular season impact data and not doing so for the playoffs. In fact, I think that’s the most reasonable approach. All the impact data for Hakeem that I referred to have a larger sample size than what we have for Jokic in the playoffs, though I grant that the Squared sample isn’t exactly orders of magnitude bigger.

Mmm, not buying that. A metric that doesn't count in the most important time of year is a metric that can't be used.

Jokic had notably terrible playoff on/off.the 4 years before last (with only a +2 even in his championship year). It's one data point amdist others that are good/great and he did well last year, but it wasn't trivially bad or a one off. If he keeps it up and also doesn't win any more titles, it will have to be used against him.

I think we should just be clear-eyed about when a metric is actually usable in a remotely meaningful way and when it isn’t. RAPM (as well as the on-off it derives from) is way too noisy to be meaningful in small samples. Unfortunately, that means it’s not particularly usable in the playoffs, which is a shame since playoffs are the most important part of the year. But that doesn’t mean we should pretend RAPM is useful in playoff samples, nor does it mean we should pretend it isn’t useful in much larger samples. It’s just a metric that has certain limitations that make it good for some things and bad for others.