RealGM

This is meant to break the PC board comparing two of its favorite players.
While I am closer to the evaluation of Garnett that's here rather than the general sentiment, to me this is pretty clearly Jokic.
The level of offensive dominance he showed is too much to overcome, as good as Garnett's defense was.
That's the reason I have Dirk and Garnett very close in the same tier, and Jokic is clearly a step above Dirk on offense.

Ryoga Hibiki wrote:This is meant to break the PC board comparing two of its favorite players.
While I am closer to the evaluation of Garnett that's here rather than the general sentiment, to me this is pretty clearly Jokic.
The level of offensive dominance he showed is too much to overcome, as good as Garnett's defense was.
That's the reason I have Dirk and Garnett very close in the same tier, and Jokic is clearly a step above Dirk on offense.

Too early for this

(Not in the sense that this isn’t a fair comparison it’s too early for the PC board to compare these two players lol)

I think I may have them in similar tier, but my two-way bias leads me to rank Garnett slightly ahead - despite how much I like Jokic and how much I really don't like Garnett.

It’s incredibly close, but ultimately I trust this version of Jokic to help me win a title more than I trust 2004 KG.

Jokic. The offensive brilliance is just unreal. The man is a GOAT-level passer AND a high-volume scorer on league-leading TS% AND an elite offensive rebounder (especially in the playoffs, where he ups his game in that regard). I don’t think Garnett’s defense can possibly match the level of value Jokic’s offense provides. And, while Jokic’s defense has some flaws, it can actually genuinely be good too, and I don’t really think Garnett’s offense is particularly superior to Jokic’s defense. (I think people are much quicker to call a great defensive player a “two-way” player even if they’re not that great at offense than they are to call a great offensive player a “two-way” player despite not being great at defense).

A top 5 offensive player of all time (which I think Jokic clearly is) is just a lot more valuable than a top 5 defensive player of all time (if KG is that) in the modern game.

I lean Jokic at this point, but chose the second option here - as I’m not sure. Granted, I am not as high on Garnett as some on the PC Board, and perhaps am a little too critical of his lesser volume scoring, but I think going clearly Jokic here is overlooking how much he got an abysmal cast in MN to do from 2002-04

lessthanjake wrote:And, while Jokic’s defense has some flaws, it can actually genuinely be good too, and I don’t really think Garnett’s offense is particularly superior to Jokic’s defense. (I think people are much quicker to call a great defensive player a “two-way” player even if they’re not that great at offense than they are to call a great offensive player a “two-way” player despite not being great at defense).

I hate to say it, but that's insane take.

70sFan wrote:

lessthanjake wrote:And, while Jokic’s defense has some flaws, it can actually genuinely be good too, and I don’t really think Garnett’s offense is particularly superior to Jokic’s defense. (I think people are much quicker to call a great defensive player a “two-way” player even if they’re not that great at offense than they are to call a great offensive player a “two-way” player despite not being great at defense).

I hate to say it, but that's insane take.

Is it, though? I think people tend to say someone is a good offensive player if they got 20+ points a game, but that doesn’t actually mean they’re a good offensive player. It’s basically akin to saying someone is a good defensive player because they contested a lot of shots. I know Garnett also was a good passer, but Kevin Garnett was simply *not* a great offensive player overall. Just for reference for you: Jokic’s average DRPM the last three seasons was 3.62, while Garnett’s average ORPM in his peak from 2003-2005 was 3.35. Garnett’s average ORPM in the decade of the 2000s (i.e. his prime) was just 2.05, while Jokic’s average DRPM for his entire career starting at his rookie season is 2.10. Comparing values across years is a fraught thing, but this at least is suggestive that what I said definitely isn’t insane. I know there’s some debate over whether advanced stats overestimate Jokic’s defensive impact (and, if anything, RAPTOR is even higher on Jokic’s defense than RPM), but at the very least I don’t think it’s an insane take to say something that’s in keeping with those advanced stats—which, for my money, are not actually particularly insane with regards to Jokic’s defense, in part because I think conventional wisdom has over corrected to discount defensive rebounding, which makes people discount Jokic’s dominant rebounding when it comes to defensive value.

lessthanjake wrote:Is it, though? I think people tend to say someone is a good offensive player if they got 20+ points a game, but that doesn’t actually mean they’re a good offensive player. It’s basically akin to saying someone is a good defensive player because they contested a lot of shots.

I don't think you need to tell me, of all posters on this board, that volume scoring by itself isn't super impactful...

Thankfully this is not the reason why Garnett was in fact an elite offensive player.

I know Garnett also was a good passer, but Kevin Garnett was simply *not* a great offensive player overall.

He wasn't just a 20 ppg player who happened to be a "good passer". He was the best passing bigman in the league who happened to be also elite floor spacer for that time and elite post up isolation scorer.

I mean, the offensive league standards were lower back duirng his peak, but you won't find 10 players better offensively than Garnett in 2003-05, window.

Just for reference for you: Jokic’s average DRPM the last three seasons was 3.62, while Garnett’s average ORPM in his peak from 2003-2005 was 3.35. Garnett’s average ORPM in the decade of the 2000s (i.e. his prime) was just 2.05, while Jokic’s average DRPM for his entire career starting at his rookie season is 2.10. Comparing values across years is a fraught thing, but this at least is suggestive that what I said definitely isn’t insane. I know there’s some debate over whether advanced stats overestimate Jokic’s defensive impact (and, if anything, RAPTOR is even higher on Jokic’s defense than RPM), but at the very least I don’t think it’s an insane take to say something that’s in keeping with those advanced stats—which, for my money, are not actually particularly insane with regards to Jokic’s defense, in part because I think conventional wisdom has over corrected to discount defensive rebounding, which makes people discount Jokic’s dominant rebounding when it comes to defensive value.

Yet these numbers don't explain why teams did everything to stop Garnett - not his teammates - in the playoffs offensively, while Nuggets opponents attacked Jokic on defense at all times.

Jokic did well these playoffs defensively, in part because he improved his effort, but mostly because he didn't face unfavorable matchups and had a whole team built to hide his weaknesses. Garnett had a team built to win sub-20 wins without him.

You can't just sit before the series and decide "let's allow Garnett to have the ball and make his offense lose the series". Teams successfully did that against Jokic though on the other end of the floor.




Also, I strongly disagree with the idea that average defender has the same value as top tier defender in the league history. Sorry, but I watch basketball long enough to sniff insanity in this case.

I think Jokic is the guy here at this point.

Generally, I think Jokic is at the point where he has a good argument for being the best scorer, and playmaker in the league. As someone who is a bit lower on Garnett than many here, that kind of special company, typically leads me to catapulting certain guys over him for peak.

The previous guys I would have thought were the best scorer and playmaker in the world, such as Lebron, MJ, and perhaps some names that escape me, I would have over Garnett, on the basis of just their offense. I think Jokic is in that category of offensive player. I am not convinced Jokic's defense definitely drags him down enough, to put him below Garnett.

I think Jokic is at worst a top 10 scorer ever, and top 5 playmaker ever. That is tough combination to pass up.

I understand Garnett's Minnesota situation was pretty bad, and didn't give us a great PS sample. However, I have actually been more impressed by what Jokic has done short-handed in the 21 and 22 PS, then Garnett's Minnesota stints. He had a special scoring series against the Warriors in 22, who looked like maybe an all-time defense when healthy in the RS. And I think Jokic when he has decent defensive support in the PS, has shown to be able to remain reasonably afloat come PS time.

Extremely close your talking about top 10 defender in NBA history with a pretty good to great offensive game vs
……..a GOAT level offensive force who is average defensively as a center. May depend on roster construction

I also think it's telling that some people view 2022 series vs Warriors as a huge plus for Jokic, but they also criticize Garnett for his 2003 or 2004 losses. I would say that Garnett was definitely more impressive in these series.

70sFan wrote:

lessthanjake wrote:Is it, though? I think people tend to say someone is a good offensive player if they got 20+ points a game, but that doesn’t actually mean they’re a good offensive player. It’s basically akin to saying someone is a good defensive player because they contested a lot of shots.

I don't think you need to tell me, of all posters on this board, that volume scoring by itself isn't super impactful...

Thankfully this is not the reason why Garnett was in fact an elite offensive player.

I know Garnett also was a good passer, but Kevin Garnett was simply *not* a great offensive player overall.

He wasn't just a 20 ppg player who happened to be a "good passer". He was the best passing bigman in the league who happened to be also elite floor spacer for that time and elite post up isolation scorer.

I mean, the offensive league standards were lower back duirng his peak, but you won't find 10 players better offensively than Garnett in 2003-05, window.

Just for reference for you: Jokic’s average DRPM the last three seasons was 3.62, while Garnett’s average ORPM in his peak from 2003-2005 was 3.35. Garnett’s average ORPM in the decade of the 2000s (i.e. his prime) was just 2.05, while Jokic’s average DRPM for his entire career starting at his rookie season is 2.10. Comparing values across years is a fraught thing, but this at least is suggestive that what I said definitely isn’t insane. I know there’s some debate over whether advanced stats overestimate Jokic’s defensive impact (and, if anything, RAPTOR is even higher on Jokic’s defense than RPM), but at the very least I don’t think it’s an insane take to say something that’s in keeping with those advanced stats—which, for my money, are not actually particularly insane with regards to Jokic’s defense, in part because I think conventional wisdom has over corrected to discount defensive rebounding, which makes people discount Jokic’s dominant rebounding when it comes to defensive value.

Yet these numbers don't explain why teams did everything to stop Garnett - not his teammates - in the playoffs offensively, while Nuggets opponents attacked Jokic on defense at all times.

Jokic did well these playoffs defensively, in part because he improved his effort, but mostly because he didn't face unfavorable matchups and had a whole team built to hide his weaknesses. Garnett had a team built to win sub-20 wins without him.

You can't just sit before the series and decide "let's allow Garnett to have the ball and make his offense lose the series". Teams successfully did that against Jokic though on the other end of the floor.




Also, I strongly disagree with the idea that average defender has the same value as top tier defender in the league history. Sorry, but I watch basketball long enough to sniff insanity in this case.

In 97-22 RAPM,

Garnett is a +2.6 on offense.

Jokic is only a +1 value-add on defense.



In NBA Short Charts RAPM from 21-23, Jokic ranked 64th in D-RAPM.


We have long RAPM samples, that suggest Garnett was a pretty good offensive player for his time.

In 02-15 RAPM, Garnett is 17th in O-RAPM.


In 96-97 to 18-19 PI RAPM, there are only 12 player's with higher offensive peaks in O-RAPM.


There is nothing in pure plus-minus to suggest Jokic is an elite defensive player. And if you just look at the PS, Jokic's plus-minus signals on defense look notably worse.

70sFan wrote:Thankfully this is not the reason why Garnett was in fact an elite offensive player.

When was KG ever an elite offensive player?

I know Garnett also was a good passer, but Kevin Garnett was simply *not* a great offensive player overall.
He wasn't just a 20 ppg player who happened to be a "good passer". He was the best passing bigman in the league who happened to be also elite floor spacer for that time and elite post up isolation scorer.

I mean, the offensive league standards were lower back duirng his peak, but you won't find 10 players better offensively than Garnett in 2003-05, window.

Best passing bigman of that era? I mean he was a decent passer, but would you have him over Divac for instance? And however much value you want to ascribe to his passing, it just pales in comparison to his mediocre scoring efficiency and lack of ability to really bend defenses.

Elite post isolation scorer? KG was often relegated to being a turnaround jump shooter from 15 feet out because of his lack of size in the post. He was hardly a guy that could really hurt you in isolation and teams were very comfortable letting him take those.

Yet these numbers don't explain why teams did everything to stop Garnett - not his teammates - in the playoffs offensively, while Nuggets opponents attacked Jokic on defense at all times.

Jokic did well these playoffs defensively, in part because he improved his effort, but mostly because he didn't face unfavorable matchups and had a whole team built to hide his weaknesses. Garnett had a team built to win sub-20 wins without him.

Unfavorable matchups like the Suns were supposed to be in these past playoffs? And the Lakers as ewll?

Only Curry's Warriors of last season and the CP3 Suns in 2021 really made the Nuggets' defense look bad but who was guarding those guys? Monte Morris, Will Barton and Facundo Campazzo? The shorthanded Nuggets also beat Dame's Blazers in 2021 despite that team being yet another prototype for exposing Jokic's defense.

"Sub-20 wins" Sounds like you're pulling numbers out of your ass. But if you want to go there, the Nuggets without Jokic these last few years would've ranked dead last in the whole league in net rating.

The fact that you're willing to come up with so many excuses for KG's lack of team success until he joined up with a superteam but find ways to make excuses for why Jokic just won a championship reveals some notable bias.

Peregrine01 wrote:When was KG ever an elite offensive player?

Depending on your definition of "elite" (he was never Jokic on that end if you're asking this), but - I don't know, in 2003-04?

Best passing bigman of that era? I mean he was a decent passer, but would you have him over Divac for instance?

Arguably the best passer, yeah. You can make a case for Divac and that's basically it.

And however much value you want to ascribe to his passing, it just pales in comparison to his mediocre scoring efficiency and lack of ability to really bend defenses.

Garnett didn't have mediocre scoring efficiency at his peak, he was +3-3.5 percentage points above the league average in TS%.

Elite post isolation scorer? KG was often relegated to being a turnaround jump shooter from 15 feet out because of his lack of size in the post. He was hardly a guy that could really hurt you in isolation and teams were very comfortable letting him take those.

Tracking data we have suggest something different, at least for post up isolations.

Unfavorable matchups like the Suns were supposed to be in these past playoffs? And the Lakers as ewll?

Paul-less Suns and Lakers don't have guards who could torch you on spread P&Rs, so not really.

Only Curry's Warriors of last season and the CP3 Suns in 2021 really made the Nuggets' defense look bad but who was guarding those guys? Monte Morris, Will Barton and Facundo Campazzo? The shorthanded Nuggets also beat Dame's Blazers in 2021 despite that team being yet another prototype for exposing Jokic's defense.

Not only, the Jazz and Lakers in 2020 also abused their defense. That leads us to exactly one series against the Clippers from 2020 before 2023...

Also, the Nuggets won against Blazers while giving up 122 ORtg... How is that an argument for Jokic defense?

"Sub-20 wins" Sounds like you're pulling numbers out of your ass.

I am polite to you, why do you do that? We had this discussion during the top 100 project, you can find the numbers - and no, it's not my calculations.

But if you want to go there, the Nuggets without Jokic these last few years would've ranked dead last in the whole league in net rating.

I am aware of that, that's why I don't hold first round loss against Jokic, unlike what people do with Garnett.

The fact that you're willing to come up with so many excuses for KG's lack of team success until he joined up with a superteam but find ways to make excuses for why Jokic just won a championship reveals some notable bias.

Oh, so now I am biased against Jokic, even though he's my 3rd favorite active player and despite the fact that I'm Duncan fan who legitimately dislikes Garnett...

I have been called Jordan stan, LeBron stan, but now I am biased because I consider Garnett's case over Jokic. Sorry, but this is not a productive discussion. I always thought you are a good poster, but I won't engage with someone who accuses me of manipulating arguments for some imaginary biases.

I don't have any problem with someone picking Jokic here, I like him more as a player. I am just trying to be objective. I have nothing against people taking Garnett over Duncan either, even though I disagree. You shouldn't be so emotionally attached to your favorite player, it's only a basketball discussion.

70sFan wrote:

Peregrine01 wrote:When was KG ever an elite offensive player?

Depending on your definition of "elite" (he was never Jokic on that end if you're asking this), but - I don't know, in 2003-04?

Best passing bigman of that era? I mean he was a decent passer, but would you have him over Divac for instance?

Arguably the best passer, yeah. You can make a case for Divac and that's basically it.

And however much value you want to ascribe to his passing, it just pales in comparison to his mediocre scoring efficiency and lack of ability to really bend defenses.

Garnett didn't have mediocre scoring efficiency at his peak, he was +3-3.5 percentage points above the league average in TS%.

Elite post isolation scorer? KG was often relegated to being a turnaround jump shooter from 15 feet out because of his lack of size in the post. He was hardly a guy that could really hurt you in isolation and teams were very comfortable letting him take those.

Tracking data we have suggest something different, at least for post up isolations.

Unfavorable matchups like the Suns were supposed to be in these past playoffs? And the Lakers as ewll?

Paul-less Suns and Lakers don't have guards who could torch you on spread P&Rs, so not really.

Only Curry's Warriors of last season and the CP3 Suns in 2021 really made the Nuggets' defense look bad but who was guarding those guys? Monte Morris, Will Barton and Facundo Campazzo? The shorthanded Nuggets also beat Dame's Blazers in 2021 despite that team being yet another prototype for exposing Jokic's defense.

Not only, the Jazz and Lakers in 2020 also abused their defense. That leads us to exactly one series against the Clippers from 2020 before 2023...

Also, the Nuggets won against Blazers while giving up 122 ORtg... How is that an argument for Jokic defense?

"Sub-20 wins" Sounds like you're pulling numbers out of your ass.

I am polite to you, why do you do that? We had this discussion during the top 100 project, you can find the numbers - and no, it's not my calculations.

But if you want to go there, the Nuggets without Jokic these last few years would've ranked dead last in the whole league in net rating.

I am aware of that, that's why I don't hold first round loss against Jokic, unlike what people do with Garnett.

The fact that you're willing to come up with so many excuses for KG's lack of team success until he joined up with a superteam but find ways to make excuses for why Jokic just won a championship reveals some notable bias.

Oh, so now I am biased against Jokic, even though he's my 3rd favorite active player and despite the fact that I'm Duncan fan who legitimately dislikes Garnett...

I have been called Jordan stan, LeBron stan, but now I am biased because I consider Garnett's case over Jokic. Sorry, but this is not a productive discussion. I always thought you are a good poster, but I won't engage with someone who accuses me of manipulating arguments for some imaginary biases.

I don't have any problem with someone picking Jokic here, I like him more as a player. I am just trying to be objective. I have nothing against people taking Garnett over Duncan either, even though I disagree. You shouldn't be so emotionally attached to your favorite player, it's only a basketball discussion.

Emotionally attached? I'm pointing out holes in your argument. You strike me as someone who hates getting caught up in recency bias so you over-adjust the other way.

Forget offense for a second. If KG was such a great defender and Jokic such an exploitable one, then what explains the Wolves' DRTGs during KG's prime?

2003:
RS: 0 rDRTG
PO: -6

2004:
RS: +3
PO: -3

2005:
RS: -1
PO: missed playoffs

2006:
RS: +2
PO: missed playoffs

2007:
RS: -1
PO: missed playoffs

I'm sure many will say that KG played with bad defensive teammates to explain this away. But it's just interesting how Jokic keeps getting dinged for his team's defense despite also not having strong defensive teammates up until this year.

Peregrine01 wrote:Emotionally attached? I'm pointing out holes in your argument.

Yeah, sentences like:

"Sounds like you're pulling numbers out of your ass"

are very useful way to "pointing out holes" in my argument.

You strike me as someone who hates getting caught up in recency bias so you over-adjust the other way.

No, I am the one who saw Jokic in 2022 struggling with poor roster and in 2023 doing amazing things with much better roster and I can take everything into consideration, instead of "Jokic won, all previous criticism doesn't matter anymore".

Forget offense for a second. If KG was such a great defender and Jokic such an exploitable one, then what explains the Wolves' DRTGs during KG's prime?

2003:
RS: 0 rDRTG
PO: -6

2004:
RS: +3
PO: -3

2005:
RS: -1
PO: missed playoffs

2006:
RS: +2
PO: missed playoffs

2007:
RS: -1
PO: missed playoffs

We all know we have better ways to measure defensive impact, so why do you do that? Are you arguing in a bad faith? I can also point out that despite Jokic being much better offensive player, 2019-23 Nuggets weren't really better offensively in RS than 2000-04 Wolves. It's pointless though...

It's also funny that even though you selected a sample without many postseason runs, Wolves got significantly better defensively in the playoffs both times they made it, so even these numbers to some degree prove my point.

I'm sure many will say that KG played with bad defensive teammates to explain this away. But it's just interesting how Jokic keeps getting dinged for his team's defense despite also not having strong defensive teammates up until this year.

That's because Jokic has been dinged for his defense by me, not his team's defense. If others attacked him for his team's result, argue with them not with me.

70sFan wrote:

lessthanjake wrote:Is it, though? I think people tend to say someone is a good offensive player if they got 20+ points a game, but that doesn’t actually mean they’re a good offensive player. It’s basically akin to saying someone is a good defensive player because they contested a lot of shots.

I don't think you need to tell me, of all posters on this board, that volume scoring by itself isn't super impactful...

Thankfully this is not the reason why Garnett was in fact an elite offensive player.

I know Garnett also was a good passer, but Kevin Garnett was simply *not* a great offensive player overall.

He wasn't just a 20 ppg player who happened to be a "good passer". He was the best passing bigman in the league who happened to be also elite floor spacer for that time and elite post up isolation scorer.

I mean, the offensive league standards were lower back duirng his peak, but you won't find 10 players better offensively than Garnett in 2003-05, window.

Definitely disagree on Garnett being an “elite” offensive player. He was…solid. Good passer, but without the ability to generate high scoring efficiency for himself or a game that would really meaningfully and consistently pressure the defense (the latter of which limited the impact of his passing). And the impact signals we have are pretty consistent with that, as I noted already (particularly RPM, which is more advanced than pure RAPM, though I suppose that doesn’t *necessarily* mean it’s better). He was a positive offensive player, but I think pretty far from elite. At his very peak couple years in 2003 and 2004 he was more than just solid, and *maybe* he was knocking the door of elite in those couple years. But overall, we are not talking about an elite offensive player IMO.

I also want to note that I think grading Garnett on a curve compared to other big men offensively (i.e. “best passing bigman”) ends up biasing the analysis. Big men tend to be less valuable offensively and more valuable defensively. If we measure their value as players by looking at their defensive value in absolute terms but then looking at their offensive value in relative terms to other big men, then we will end up clearly overvaluing them.

Yet these numbers don't explain why teams did everything to stop Garnett - not his teammates - in the playoffs offensively, while Nuggets opponents attacked Jokic on defense at all times.

I don’t see this as a particularly meaningful point, to be honest.

Teams aimed to stop Garnett on offense because he was his team’s offensive focal point (largely since his teams were not good and did not have any particularly good offensive players to focus on instead). The moment he went to a team with offensive players that were actually legitimately good (Pierce & Allen), he instantly was not used as an offensive focal point and teams did not focus on stopping Garnett offensively. Like, if your point is that Kevin Garnett is better offensively than Wally Szczerbiak, then I agree but also don’t think it refutes my point at all.

As for teams attacking Jokic, it is of course standard NBA offense to attack a big man off a pick and roll. You could say the same thing about really great defenders, like Embiid, Gobert, etc. Allowing a guard to attack a big man in space is a big part of the entire point of the game’s most basic play! Second, as with any massive offensive star, teams will *particularly* focus on attacking Jokic in order to tire him out in the hopes that that’ll make him less effective on offense. The bottom line reality is that advanced metrics like RPM and RAPTOR tell us that Jokic is a solidly positive defensive player. And RPM also tells us that Garnett was merely a solidly positive offensive player. There’s of course room to disagree with that (based on eye test or looking at more raw data or whatever), but I don’t think an argument that’s supported by the most advanced data we have is “insane.”

And, again, for my money, I think Jokic’s defense is actually legitimately pretty good. There was a time when big rebounders got overrated as defenders, but the pendulum has swung too far the other way now. Jokic is probably the best defensive rebounder in the NBA, and the Nuggets are consistently elite at preventing offensive rebounds when Jokic is on the court. This is a big deal! He’s also legitimately very disruptive in the passing lanes and at stripping people in the paint. We see it throughout the season, but it was also on full display in the playoffs. He also has great positioning, which allows him to get in a position to contest tons of shots (he’s always near the very top of the league in how many shots he contests). He isn’t a gifted enough rim protector for those contests to be as effective as some other guys’ contests, but contesting a shot at all is a big deal, and contesting a handful more shots a game than other big men is valuable (albeit, as I’ve noted, not enough on its own to make him elite).

LukaTheGOAT wrote:

70sFan wrote:

lessthanjake wrote:Is it, though? I think people tend to say someone is a good offensive player if they got 20+ points a game, but that doesn’t actually mean they’re a good offensive player. It’s basically akin to saying someone is a good defensive player because they contested a lot of shots.

I don't think you need to tell me, of all posters on this board, that volume scoring by itself isn't super impactful...

Thankfully this is not the reason why Garnett was in fact an elite offensive player.

I know Garnett also was a good passer, but Kevin Garnett was simply *not* a great offensive player overall.

He wasn't just a 20 ppg player who happened to be a "good passer". He was the best passing bigman in the league who happened to be also elite floor spacer for that time and elite post up isolation scorer.

I mean, the offensive league standards were lower back duirng his peak, but you won't find 10 players better offensively than Garnett in 2003-05, window.

Just for reference for you: Jokic’s average DRPM the last three seasons was 3.62, while Garnett’s average ORPM in his peak from 2003-2005 was 3.35. Garnett’s average ORPM in the decade of the 2000s (i.e. his prime) was just 2.05, while Jokic’s average DRPM for his entire career starting at his rookie season is 2.10. Comparing values across years is a fraught thing, but this at least is suggestive that what I said definitely isn’t insane. I know there’s some debate over whether advanced stats overestimate Jokic’s defensive impact (and, if anything, RAPTOR is even higher on Jokic’s defense than RPM), but at the very least I don’t think it’s an insane take to say something that’s in keeping with those advanced stats—which, for my money, are not actually particularly insane with regards to Jokic’s defense, in part because I think conventional wisdom has over corrected to discount defensive rebounding, which makes people discount Jokic’s dominant rebounding when it comes to defensive value.

Yet these numbers don't explain why teams did everything to stop Garnett - not his teammates - in the playoffs offensively, while Nuggets opponents attacked Jokic on defense at all times.

Jokic did well these playoffs defensively, in part because he improved his effort, but mostly because he didn't face unfavorable matchups and had a whole team built to hide his weaknesses. Garnett had a team built to win sub-20 wins without him.

You can't just sit before the series and decide "let's allow Garnett to have the ball and make his offense lose the series". Teams successfully did that against Jokic though on the other end of the floor.

Also, I strongly disagree with the idea that average defender has the same value as top tier defender in the league history. Sorry, but I watch basketball long enough to sniff insanity in this case.

In 97-22 RAPM, Garnett is a +2.6 on offense.
Jokic is only a +1 value-add on defense.

In NBA Short Charts RAPM from 21-23, Jokic ranked 64th in D-RAPM.

We have long RAPM samples, that suggest Garnett was a pretty good offensive player for his time.

In 02-15 RAPM, Garnett is 17th in O-RAPM.

In 96-97 to 18-19 PI RAPM, there are only 12 player's with higher offensive peaks in O-RAPM.


There is nothing in pure plus-minus to suggest Jokic is an elite defensive player. And if you just look at the PS, Jokic's plus-minus signals on defense look notably worse.

The bolded suggest that he was a very, very good and impactful offensive player, which is corroborated by watching him and seeing the many things he’s very good at.

JE has some really strong ORAPM years for him in his RS+PS sets: +5.5 in 2003-2004, +4.7 in 2004-2005, +4.5 in 2002-2003, +3.5 in 1999-2000, and +3 in 2008-2009 and 2007-2008, 2005-2006. Also, that +2.6 includes all of his later years which bring him down. Basically without his first year as an 18-year-old and then his last couple of years, you’re looking at a +3 career ORAPM player, which is really good.