RealGM

Career, peak. Suggested in the Bird v. Garnett thread.

Fun topic!

Could use a poll to go along with the discussion, though, I think.

I think peak and prime is Jokic(if we're talking his last 7 years vs Bird's best 7). Career I still have Bird by a bit. I think Jokic will basically draw even with Bird in a year or two then pass him. His playoff consistency is also on a level above Bird's as is his playoff peak. Bird's 3 title runs to Jokic's 1 does count for something too though. Bird's teams also played in 8 or 9 ecf's.

It's probably going to be Jokic for both before long if it isn't already. Between his short-ish prime and not infrequent playoff struggles I struggle to keep Bird in the top 10 all-time. Honestly, he might already be out of it for me.

It's still debatable either way, but I feel like by the end of their careers it'll be Jokic fairly clearly. Peak might already be Jokic.

Speaking to the actual core point, I think this is Jokic as well.

I'm a big Bird fan, but I think Jokic is just a monster. And much more capable of exerting impact even if his perimeter shot isn't going. He's a better playmaker, he's a better rebounder, he's a better interior scorer, etc. Bird was amazing, but as Cavsfan said, the playoff consistency also favors Jokic. I dunno if I care so much about the number of title runs, given the humongous difference in talent around Bird versus Jokic, though. Prime and peak, I take Jokic.

Career, I mean, Jokic plays with any heavyweight ATG you like. So unless you favor Bird's ring count, I think it generally leans more toward Jokic as well, though it's probably pretty close at this point. Bird only played like 150 more games in the RS compared to Jokic so far, though, and about 70 more in the playoffs. So you can argue that he's presently enjoying a tiny longevity advantage until Jokic completes the remainder of his career.

Jokic for peak/prime.

And I'll pick him for career once he retires.

Peak prime Jokic by a significant margin, career prob still a slight edge to Bird but a few more years and I'd give it to Jokic.

I think jokic is such a clearly better scorer which also leads to more playmaking opportunities that this is a obvious answer

Albeit i am also low on bird relatively speaking and would put plenty of modern names on par or above him that would cause some people strokes to see

Pretty one-sided so far. I’d like to hear arguments from the Bird supporters in the KG vs. Bird thread.

SNPA wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

migya wrote:Bird.

kcktiny wrote:.

Warspite wrote:.

Jokic is clearly a better offensive player

homecourtloss wrote:Pretty one-sided so far. I’d like to hear arguments from the Bird supporters in the KG vs. Bird thread.

SNPA wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

migya wrote:Bird.

kcktiny wrote:.

Warspite wrote:.

Probably time you get checked for your attitude and intentions. Been a while this has gone on.

Bird for career, Jokic for peak. Quite clearly so for now.

migya wrote:

homecourtloss wrote:Pretty one-sided so far. I’d like to hear arguments from the Bird supporters in the KG vs. Bird thread.

SNPA wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

migya wrote:Bird.

kcktiny wrote:.

Warspite wrote:.

Probably time you get checked for your attitude and intentions. Been a while this has gone on.

To be fair, it's far from the same argument. Bird v. KG has a much stronger defensive element and if you value big man defense highly, it's easy to come down on Garnett's side.

I am a big fan of Bird, but I would agree with the consensus on this thread. My very specific hot take that Bird would probably be between 2-5 in today's NBA (ala, very likely clearly worse than Jokic, but very likely clearly better than Tatum).

Two notes: it does seem like Bird's reputation has gone down as time has gone on. I was not around then, but from what I've read, Bird was, in his day, considered by many to be better than Magic and potentially the goat over Kareem (now consensus, in most places, #3 oat). I'm not going to argue that potential is correct (esp. since I consider well-thought out arguments well separated from the emotions and stories of the time period to generally be considered more accurate).

Second note is that Bird never averaged greater than 3.3 3p apg. For reference, Jokic averages four (at also very good efficiency). Bird was obviously a good shooter, but the league is filled with good shooters who are shooting against people who are much better at defending the three-ball than they were in Bird's day. Being a good 3 point shooter in a bad 3 point era goes both ways.
Point is this: Bird was obviously very talented at shooting, so in a league where the three-ball is king it is reasonable to expect that Bird is going to still get more out of his 10,000 hours than most other players besides Curry. On the other hand, good shooting against '80s 3-point defense on limited attempts is probably much easier than elite shooting against modern 3-point defense on volume, which is what you would want to see out of him. There's a lot of play there in how good he would be in these days. I'll say this, leaving aside in-game context, if I were to consider Bird > Jokic, I would want to believe we'd see Luka-level (11-3pa on 38% or so) 3-point shooting in this era, and I am not convinced he'd be that good.

I would have to look at shot diet and the like to have more to say, but, to be as good as Jokic, I think Bird would have to be much more effective in attacking the rim than he was. I may be putting him as a different player than he was; as I said I was not around back then. Regardless, if someone could convince me that Bird would offer up (12-3pa on 38% outside shooting) while offering close to Shai or Giannis rim-pressure or close to Shai % midrange, then I think there'd be an argument. But I don't think Bird would be that quite a player.

Marrs-Law wrote:Two notes: it does seem like Bird's reputation has gone down as time has gone on.

It's been almost 35 years since he retired, and there's a whole new slew of data more regularly available now. That sort of thing changes stuff, no doubt. The impact of the shift from tape delay to live broadcast is lessened now, many decades later, and there are many more guys who have been incredible since he retired. It's the inevitability which comes with the roll of years. As the decades pass, the chance of someone surpassing the older-era greats rises considerably, you know?

Bird was great, but there's a lot of narrative weight to the arguments for him in terms of specific ranking. The trash talking stories, the left-handed game, etc. And a lot of silence when people bring up his postseason struggles, his issues with athletic/powerful defenders and how his own decisions shortened his career and robbed Boston of the chance to compete past 87.

In terms of accolades, in terms of team success, he's right up there. In terms of individual performance, he's still a guy who ranks well. But he's hardly in the same space he occupied 40 years ago, you know what I mean? It's hard for a player to maintain the exact same purchase on his ATG rank from the end of his career to nearly half a century later.

tsherkin wrote:

Marrs-Law wrote:Two notes: it does seem like Bird's reputation has gone down as time has gone on.

It's been almost 35 years since he retired, and there's a whole new slew of data more regularly available now. That sort of thing changes stuff, no doubt. The impact of the shift from tape delay to live broadcast is lessened now, many decades later, and there are many more guys who have been incredible since he retired. It's the inevitability which comes with the roll of years. As the decades pass, the chance of someone surpassing the older-era greats rises considerably, you know?

Bird was great, but there's a lot of narrative weight to the arguments for him in terms of specific ranking. The trash talking stories, the left-handed game, etc. And a lot of silence when people bring up his postseason struggles, his issues with athletic/powerful defenders and how his own decisions shortened his career and robbed Boston of the chance to compete past 87.

In terms of accolades, in terms of team success, he's right up there. In terms of individual performance, he's still a guy who ranks well. But he's hardly in the same space he occupied 40 years ago, you know what I mean? It's hard for a player to maintain the exact same purchase on his ATG rank from the end of his career to nearly half a century later.

I meant slightly more in reference to his peers, but I 100% agree with you. Bird played 40 years ago; I do wonder what these atg lists will look like 40 years from now!

Marrs-Law wrote:I meant slightly more in reference to his peers, but I 100% agree with you.

And I think the same stuff largely applies, right? Narrative weight wipes away certain critiques in the moment, but comes back as the buzz from the time itself, and the edge of nostalgia, roll back, you know?

Bird played 40 years ago; I do wonder what these atg lists will look like 40 years from now!

Yes, it's fascinating to think about who we'll get to see in the meantime to effect those changes, no?

migya wrote:

homecourtloss wrote:Pretty one-sided so far. I’d like to hear arguments from the Bird supporters in the KG vs. Bird thread.

SNPA wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

migya wrote:Bird.

kcktiny wrote:.

Warspite wrote:.

Probably time you get checked for your attitude and intentions. Been a while this has gone on.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

We have a concurrent thread that was bumped comparing Bird and KG with some posters categorically saying Bird when KG’s defensive value edge over Bird’s is surely greater than Jokic’s offensive value over Bird, and given the tenor of that thread and posters’ vehemence of Bird’s superiority, I would think that some posters would argue that Jokic’s offensive value edge isn’t a given either, so I’m surprised to not see any push back at all in this thread.

migya wrote:

homecourtloss wrote:Pretty one-sided so far. I’d like to hear arguments from the Bird supporters in the KG vs. Bird thread.

SNPA wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

migya wrote:Bird.

kcktiny wrote:.

Warspite wrote:.

Probably time you get checked for your attitude and intentions. Been a while this has gone on.

He literally just tagged you

Pretty clear that Jokic is the better player. Greater ability to exert his impact on a game in ways that Bird never could. Bird has the three championships going for him to make this more of a career debate but he also played on the most winning franchise in NBA history with HOF talent around him. There's a good chance that Jokic never plays with an all-star before he retires.