Jokic - where does he stand historically

[kendogg]

Jokic is in the same boat as Dirk in that he'll never win a championship without a defensive roster built around him. But unlike Dirk, Jokic can't really play PF. So he would need an elite rim protector at the 4 of the Evan Mobley / Jaren Jackson Jr ilk. Even then it might be a bit awkward if Jokic is the one playing drop.

[Doctor MJ]

I don’t feel thats a given for a lot of guys criteria Tbf

The interesting thing is conceptually while I get why he’s been so attacked on defense in the playoffs, I don’t think it would be an issue at all before the curry era

Excellent point.

If guys in earlier eras could have targeted as much in space as Jokic, but they just weren’t, Jokic shouldn’t be penalized relative to them on a GOAT list that is just about how good at basketball guys are.

I will say that I think Jokic particularly benefits offensively from today’s spacing and that shouldn’t be ignored when we consider the prior point, but I’m glad you brought it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does he actually? Like is there an actual advantage he's getting here relative to his peers? Yes spacing helps your numbers, but it helps everyone's numbers, so that doesn't really mean anything on its own. Not saying that's how far you've thought this out, but it is a common misconception here, so I may as well pry.

Here's how I see it. The recognition of the value of 3-point shooting, and 3-point shooting role players, results in:

a) greater in-practice scoring value for great 3-point shooters in general
b) greater in-practice scoring value for these role players, and relatively less scoring value for traditional volume scorer

And then as a result...
c) greater offensive value for passers relative to volume scorers because they have more valuable targets
d) greater efficiency for 2-point shooters in well-spaced out schemes with good decision making
e) greater offensive value for good decision makers in general - with the choice of when to score and when to pass being central to this

To some degree I think you could say that these means every offensive player experiences benefit from the changes, but different players are affected in different ways.

For example, in the case of Steph Curry, the added value is primarily in the recognition of what he would have been able to do in any era if only coaches understood it. As such, it makes complete sense to say that Curry actually would have been more valuable in earlier eras even if you didn't change your general schemes. Any team that left Curry open from 3 - which was common practice in the past - would get destroyed if his team would only pass him the ball unless they started using defensive schemes that are now common place.

With Jokic by contrast, you're talking about a guy who is mostly benefitting from the effects of these (a) and (b) players. While Jokic can shoot 3's, his passing, decision making, and interior scoring value increases because of the placement and abilities of those other players.

This is true for any helio of course, but then there's this added wrinkle:

It's hard for cutters to cut through the paint if the paint is clogged with bodies. While the LeBrons/Hardens/Lukas are more likely to want their teammates in the half-court to just stand still as far from the basket as possible impersonating robots without legs until specific actions occur, Jokic wants his players to be in motion constantly with dives toward the rim being an ever-present threat.

(If anyone wants to take issue with this dichotomy I get it - it's not so black & white, but the fundamental thing here is that spacing enables off-ball motion, and so the more you make use of that, the more benefit you get from it.

Curry obviously makes use of this too as a rover...but the only reason he does so is because defenses aren't leaving him open beyond the arc. It would be easier for him if defenses actually dared him to shoot from range like defenses in past eras did to all players all the time.)

[MyUniBroDavis]

Excellent point.

If guys in earlier eras could have targeted as much in space as Jokic, but they just weren’t, Jokic shouldn’t be penalized relative to them on a GOAT list that is just about how good at basketball guys are.

I will say that I think Jokic particularly benefits offensively from today’s spacing and that shouldn’t be ignored when we consider the prior point, but I’m glad you brought it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At the same time does jokic particularly benefit compared to others that are playing now? Post counters are more about cuts than threes I think, although I guess they don’t run it like that back then either.

Jokic lacks explosiveness but a fluid 325 pound 7 footer with potentially one of if not the best big man touch ever
Is probably an unstoppable post scorer in any era

I get your point, but Jokic never approached 325 lbs, come on...

Okay 300 then lol

Thought I read it was 330 or something but guess I was wrong, he’s said he likes playing at 290+ and then he showed up fatter than usual the next year lol

[OhayoKD]

Excellent point.

If guys in earlier eras could have targeted as much in space as Jokic, but they just weren’t, Jokic shouldn’t be penalized relative to them on a GOAT list that is just about how good at basketball guys are.

I will say that I think Jokic particularly benefits offensively from today’s spacing and that shouldn’t be ignored when we consider the prior point, but I’m glad you brought it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does he actually? Like is there an actual advantage he's getting here relative to his peers? Yes spacing helps your numbers, but it helps everyone's numbers, so that doesn't really mean anything on its own. Not saying that's how far you've thought this out, but it is a common misconception here, so I may as well pry.

Here's how I see it. The recognition of the value of 3-point shooting, and 3-point shooting role players, results in:

a) greater in-practice scoring value for great 3-point shooters in general
b) greater in-practice scoring value for these role players, and relatively less scoring value for traditional volume scorer

And then as a result...
c) greater offensive value for passers relative to volume scorers because they have more valuable targets
d) greater efficiency for 2-point shooters in well-spaced out schemes with good decision making
e) greater offensive value for good decision makers in general - with the choice of when to score and when to pass being central to this

To some degree I think you could say that these means every offensive player experiences benefit from the changes, but different players are affected in different ways.

For example, in the case of Steph Curry, the added value is primarily in the recognition of what he would have been able to do in any era if only coaches understood it. As such, it makes complete sense to say that Curry actually would have been more valuable in earlier eras even if you didn't change your general schemes. Any team that left Curry open from 3 - which was common practice in the past - would get destroyed if his team would only pass him the ball unless they started using defensive schemes that are now common place.

With Jokic by contrast, you're talking about a guy who is mostly benefitting from the effects of these (a) and (b) players. While Jokic can shoot 3's, his passing, decision making, and interior scoring value increases because of the placement and abilities of those other players.

This is true for any helio of course, but then there's this added wrinkle:

It's hard for cutters to cut through the paint if the paint is clogged with bodies. While the LeBrons/Hardens/Lukas are more likely to want their teammates in the half-court to just stand still as far from the basket as possible impersonating robots without legs until specific actions occur, Jokic wants his players to be in motion constantly with dives toward the rim being an ever-present threat.

(If anyone wants to take issue with this dichotomy I get it - it's not so black & white, but the fundamental thing here is that spacing enables off-ball motion, and so the more you make use of that, the more benefit you get from it.

Curry obviously makes use of this too as a rover...but the only reason he does so is because defenses aren't leaving him open beyond the arc. It would be easier for him if defenses actually dared him to shoot from range like defenses in past eras did to all players all the time.)

Okay so two points of contention.

1) all offensive players improve. Disagree. Not commenting on talent levels overall...I think shooters decrease in value relative to older eras as they're more replaceable. I would also say it being easier to score inside makes it harder to gain relative separation as a drive and kick guy. I'm operating on the precept that scarcity determines value(higher scoring game means higher treshold for influence, replacability ect). I also think the value of "good-not-great passing" helios decreases. IOW the "treshold" of passing skill required to reach certain levels of impact is higher. Again, the key here is relative seperation. Everyone now has more high value targets to find, but sophisticated defensive schemes complicate successfully finding these, and crucially, value is derived from finding them at a higher rate than the other playmakers, not simply hitting a high-rate in an absolute sense. The flipside is for, say the 90's, being "higher-skilled" may lose value as the windows open(hedging is much weaker, angles on the perimiter are much wider, and you need to hit a lower rate to keep pace. So in this sense I see Jokic losing value(making no adjustment for talent levels whatsoever). However that "off-ball" passing is much more common now than it was in older-eras so IF you can get personel to do the basic bits there, I think that is a bigger edge way back.

2) I think you're underselling shooting here as a potential game-changer. Right now, it's not that valuable as there is an abundance of shooting, and that is true even(to an extent) for bigs. But if you teleport this back when bird/price are the great spacers of their eras with 3-4 3's a game, jokic has a new avenue of league defending influence. As defenses weren't covering those properly, jokic's effiency can probably scale up, and jokic has an opportunity to establish himself as one of the premier spacers/off-ball creators of that era.

Like, honestly I see Bird posting goatish offensive impact and its hard for me to not see Jokic not being a league breaking offensive force. Maybe I'm missing something here, but outright I feel jokic blows bird away as an absolute talent and he scales up as a suped up version.

[Duke4life831]

2 MVP's (possibly 3) automatically gets you in the Top-50. Is this actually a serious question? I'll keep banging the drum that mediocre longevity (Solid All-Star but non-MVP caliber seasons) for the true all-time-greats is incredibly overrated. Like, cool, I don't care that someone like Paul Pierce or Scottie Pippen played nearly two decades when they never even came close to approaching the level of player that Jokic or Giannis is.

Ya I dont get how this can even be debatable. If Jokic and Giannis both retire after this year, both are locks to be top 50. Just looking at ESPN's latest top 75 players of all time.

Harden is at #50. Ya Id easily take Jokic and Giannis over Harden.
Ray Allen is at #47. Ya again easily take Jokic and Giannis over him. I get the longevity and stuff, but he only made 2 All NBA teams in his career (never made a 1st team). Jokic and Giannis are clearly the superior players.
Gary Payton is at #42. No denying he was a stud. But again was he as good as what we have seen from Jokic and Giannis? No. At minimum there is going to be 5 MVPs and 9 1st team All NBA between them by the end of the season. And that is all by the time theyre both 28 years old.

[Doctor MJ]

Does he actually? Like is there an actual advantage he's getting here relative to his peers? Yes spacing helps your numbers, but it helps everyone's numbers, so that doesn't really mean anything on its own. Not saying that's how far you've thought this out, but it is a common misconception here, so I may as well pry.

Here's how I see it. The recognition of the value of 3-point shooting, and 3-point shooting role players, results in:

a) greater in-practice scoring value for great 3-point shooters in general
b) greater in-practice scoring value for these role players, and relatively less scoring value for traditional volume scorer

And then as a result...
c) greater offensive value for passers relative to volume scorers because they have more valuable targets
d) greater efficiency for 2-point shooters in well-spaced out schemes with good decision making
e) greater offensive value for good decision makers in general - with the choice of when to score and when to pass being central to this

To some degree I think you could say that these means every offensive player experiences benefit from the changes, but different players are affected in different ways.

For example, in the case of Steph Curry, the added value is primarily in the recognition of what he would have been able to do in any era if only coaches understood it. As such, it makes complete sense to say that Curry actually would have been more valuable in earlier eras even if you didn't change your general schemes. Any team that left Curry open from 3 - which was common practice in the past - would get destroyed if his team would only pass him the ball unless they started using defensive schemes that are now common place.

With Jokic by contrast, you're talking about a guy who is mostly benefitting from the effects of these (a) and (b) players. While Jokic can shoot 3's, his passing, decision making, and interior scoring value increases because of the placement and abilities of those other players.

This is true for any helio of course, but then there's this added wrinkle:

It's hard for cutters to cut through the paint if the paint is clogged with bodies. While the LeBrons/Hardens/Lukas are more likely to want their teammates in the half-court to just stand still as far from the basket as possible impersonating robots without legs until specific actions occur, Jokic wants his players to be in motion constantly with dives toward the rim being an ever-present threat.

(If anyone wants to take issue with this dichotomy I get it - it's not so black & white, but the fundamental thing here is that spacing enables off-ball motion, and so the more you make use of that, the more benefit you get from it.

Curry obviously makes use of this too as a rover...but the only reason he does so is because defenses aren't leaving him open beyond the arc. It would be easier for him if defenses actually dared him to shoot from range like defenses in past eras did to all players all the time.)

Okay so two points of contention.

1) all offensive players improve. Disagree. Not commenting on talent levels overall...I think shooters decrease in value relative to older eras as they're more replaceable. I would also say it being easier to score inside makes it harder to gain relative separation as a drive and kick guy. I'm operating on the precept that scarcity determines value(higher scoring game means higher treshold for influence, replacability ect). I also think the value of "good-not-great passing" helios decreases. IOW the "treshold" of passing skill required to reach certain levels of impact is higher. Again, the key here is relative seperation. Everyone now has more high value targets to find, but sophisticated defensive schemes complicate successfully finding these, and crucially, value is derived from finding them at a higher rate than the other playmakers, not simply hitting a high-rate in an absolute sense. The flipside is for, say the 90's, being "higher-skilled" may lose value as the windows open(hedging is much weaker, angles on the perimiter are much wider, and you need to hit a lower rate to keep pace. So in this sense I see Jokic losing value(making no adjustment for talent levels whatsoever). However that "off-ball" passing is much more common now than it was in older-eras so IF you can get personel to do the basic bits there, I think that is a bigger edge way back.

2) I think you're underselling shooting here as a potential game-changer. Right now, it's not that valuable as there is an abundance of shooting, and that is true even(to an extent) for bigs. But if you teleport this back when bird/price are the great spacers of their eras with 3-4 3's a game, jokic has a new avenue of league defending influence. As defenses weren't covering those properly, jokic's effiency can probably scale up, and jokic has an opportunity to establish himself as one of the premier spacers/off-ball creators of that era.

Like, honestly I see Bird posting goatish offensive impact and its hard for me to not see Jokic not being a league breaking offensive force. Maybe I'm missing something here, but outright I feel jokic blows bird away as an absolute talent and he scales up as a suped up version.

On (1):

a - Keep in mind that when we're talking about role players most of the "they" weren't "shooters" before. I'm saying that your run of the mill role player, who previously got hit with a large stick if he dared tried to shoot a 3, is now more valuable because it has been discovered that it turns out that humans in general have this capacity, and so they train up on and make use of this skill.

b - You're focused more on the 3-point shooting specialists of previous generations I think, and yes, there is potential for them to now be less valuable because others can do the thing too. However in practice, I don't think we're there yet. Case in point: Seth Curry didn't get drafted in 2013 despite the fact everyone knew that if he were to be an NBA player, he'd be a 3-point shooting specialist. Yet now Curry is in demand despite the fact the average role player in the league is a much better 3-point shooter than they were in 2013. What explains this? Similar to his brother:

Both Currys would be less valuable now if they had been properly valued before, but the same reason why they'd be less valuable in theory is the same reason why weren't properly valued.

In other words, when you say "scarcity determines value", remember that scarcity is not rarity. Rarity is how uncommon a thing is, while scarcity is a statement of demand relative to supply. So while rarity has gone down on this front, the ratio of that determines scarcity has still been going up because the earlier demand was so, so, so naïve.

d - On improvement and standing out. Note that I said "you could say". I realize that if everyone improves equally in some absolute scale that on a relative scale no one improves, and that someone who improves less than averages stands out less.

This is why I've always said that pure volume scorers are less valuable in today's NBA than they were back when the in-practice scoring value of their role player was less.

e - If I'm following your logic, you're saying Jokic has less value as a passer today because spacing creates wide passing windows which decreases how much passing skill you need to hit those windows. Please do let me know if I've misinterpreted because I was surprised by the statement.

Operating on this premise what I'd say is that the widening of windows effectively creates new windows where none existed before, and the ability for a player to recognize, manufacture, and target these new windows is a bigger part of what I consider to be "passing ability" than a player's ability to simply throw a pass through an obvious window.

Note that I'm not saying that it is inevitable that the strongest passers will continue to add separation - the more absolute thing going on is that guys who really can't pass well are going extinct as offensive alphas - but I do think that in general having more passing options will tend to favor guys with incredible brains because they will be the ones who can exploit the situation to make it impossible for the defense to cover all angles.

On (2) -

Point taken. The reality is that basically any competent shooter in today's game would destroy the previous eras until they adapted and so I really shouldn't make any statement implying that any of these guys wouldn't be the best player in the world in those earlier eras if we don't let those earlier eras adapt in our hypothetical scenario.

But a Jokic feeds off the shooting of teammates more so than a Curry does, and so I think it's fair to say that the benefits he'd get from playing in a drastically less competent strategic age would be damped more so than Curry's would.

[dygaction]

Jokic is in the same boat as Dirk in that he'll never win a championship without a defensive roster built around him. But unlike Dirk, Jokic can't really play PF. So he would need an elite rim protector at the 4 of the Evan Mobley / Jaren Jackson Jr ilk. Even then it might be a bit awkward if Jokic is the one playing drop.

Or he can be as lucky as Kareem or Shaq to have another ATG like Magic or Kobe fall on his lap.. To be serious, they are a contender this year. With his efficiency inside and others' 3s falling, they don't have to be very good on defense.

[OhayoKD]

Here's how I see it. The recognition of the value of 3-point shooting, and 3-point shooting role players, results in:

a) greater in-practice scoring value for great 3-point shooters in general
b) greater in-practice scoring value for these role players, and relatively less scoring value for traditional volume scorer

And then as a result...
c) greater offensive value for passers relative to volume scorers because they have more valuable targets
d) greater efficiency for 2-point shooters in well-spaced out schemes with good decision making
e) greater offensive value for good decision makers in general - with the choice of when to score and when to pass being central to this

To some degree I think you could say that these means every offensive player experiences benefit from the changes, but different players are affected in different ways.

For example, in the case of Steph Curry, the added value is primarily in the recognition of what he would have been able to do in any era if only coaches understood it. As such, it makes complete sense to say that Curry actually would have been more valuable in earlier eras even if you didn't change your general schemes. Any team that left Curry open from 3 - which was common practice in the past - would get destroyed if his team would only pass him the ball unless they started using defensive schemes that are now common place.

With Jokic by contrast, you're talking about a guy who is mostly benefitting from the effects of these (a) and (b) players. While Jokic can shoot 3's, his passing, decision making, and interior scoring value increases because of the placement and abilities of those other players.

This is true for any helio of course, but then there's this added wrinkle:

It's hard for cutters to cut through the paint if the paint is clogged with bodies. While the LeBrons/Hardens/Lukas are more likely to want their teammates in the half-court to just stand still as far from the basket as possible impersonating robots without legs until specific actions occur, Jokic wants his players to be in motion constantly with dives toward the rim being an ever-present threat.

(If anyone wants to take issue with this dichotomy I get it - it's not so black & white, but the fundamental thing here is that spacing enables off-ball motion, and so the more you make use of that, the more benefit you get from it.

Curry obviously makes use of this too as a rover...but the only reason he does so is because defenses aren't leaving him open beyond the arc. It would be easier for him if defenses actually dared him to shoot from range like defenses in past eras did to all players all the time.)

Okay so two points of contention.

1) all offensive players improve. Disagree. Not commenting on talent levels overall...I think shooters decrease in value relative to older eras as they're more replaceable. I would also say it being easier to score inside makes it harder to gain relative separation as a drive and kick guy. I'm operating on the precept that scarcity determines value(higher scoring game means higher treshold for influence, replacability ect). I also think the value of "good-not-great passing" helios decreases. IOW the "treshold" of passing skill required to reach certain levels of impact is higher. Again, the key here is relative seperation. Everyone now has more high value targets to find, but sophisticated defensive schemes complicate successfully finding these, and crucially, value is derived from finding them at a higher rate than the other playmakers, not simply hitting a high-rate in an absolute sense. The flipside is for, say the 90's, being "higher-skilled" may lose value as the windows open(hedging is much weaker, angles on the perimiter are much wider, and you need to hit a lower rate to keep pace. So in this sense I see Jokic losing value(making no adjustment for talent levels whatsoever). However that "off-ball" passing is much more common now than it was in older-eras so IF you can get personel to do the basic bits there, I think that is a bigger edge way back.

2) I think you're underselling shooting here as a potential game-changer. Right now, it's not that valuable as there is an abundance of shooting, and that is true even(to an extent) for bigs. But if you teleport this back when bird/price are the great spacers of their eras with 3-4 3's a game, jokic has a new avenue of league defending influence. As defenses weren't covering those properly, jokic's effiency can probably scale up, and jokic has an opportunity to establish himself as one of the premier spacers/off-ball creators of that era.

Like, honestly I see Bird posting goatish offensive impact and its hard for me to not see Jokic not being a league breaking offensive force. Maybe I'm missing something here, but outright I feel jokic blows bird away as an absolute talent and he scales up as a suped up version.

On (1):

a - Keep in mind that when we're talking about role players most of the "they" weren't "shooters" before. I'm saying that your run of the mill role player, who previously got hit with a large stick if he dared tried to shoot a 3, is now more valuable because it has been discovered that it turns out that humans in general have this capacity, and so they train up on and make use of this skill.

b - You're focused more on the 3-point shooting specialists of previous generations I think, and yes, there is potential for them to now be less valuable because others can do the thing too. However in practice, I don't think we're there yet. Case in point: Seth Curry didn't get drafted in 2013 despite the fact everyone knew that if he were to be an NBA player, he'd be a 3-point shooting specialist. Yet now Curry is in demand despite the fact the average role player in the league is a much better 3-point shooter than they were in 2013. What explains this? Similar to his brother:

Both Currys would be less valuable now if they had been properly valued before, but the same reason why they'd be less valuable in theory is the same reason why weren't properly valued.

In other words, when you say "scarcity determines value", remember that scarcity is not rarity. Rarity is how uncommon a thing is, while scarcity is a statement of demand relative to supply. So while rarity has gone down on this front, the ratio of that determines scarcity has still been going up because the earlier demand was so, so, so naïve.

d - On improvement and standing out. Note that I said "you could say". I realize that if everyone improves equally in some absolute scale that on a relative scale no one improves, and that someone who improves less than averages stands out less.

This is why I've always said that pure volume scorers are less valuable in today's NBA than they were back when the in-practice scoring value of their role player was less.

e - If I'm following your logic, you're saying Jokic has less value as a passer today because spacing creates wide passing windows which decreases how much passing skill you need to hit those windows. Please do let me know if I've misinterpreted because I was surprised by the statement.

Operating on this premise what I'd say is that the widening of windows effectively creates new windows where none existed before, and the ability for a player to recognize, manufacture, and target these new windows is a bigger part of what I consider to be "passing ability" than a player's ability to simply throw a pass through an obvious window.

Note that I'm not saying that it is inevitable that the strongest passers will continue to add separation - the more absolute thing going on is that guys who really can't pass well are going extinct as offensive alphas - but I do think that in general having more passing options will tend to favor guys with incredible brains because they will be the ones who can exploit the situation to make it impossible for the defense to cover all angles.

On (2) -

Point taken. The reality is that basically any competent shooter in today's game would destroy the previous eras until they adapted and so I really shouldn't make any statement implying that any of these guys wouldn't be the best player in the world in those earlier eras if we don't let those earlier eras adapt in our hypothetical scenario.

But a Jokic feeds off the shooting of teammates more so than a Curry does, and so I think it's fair to say that the benefits he'd get from playing in a drastically less competent strategic age would be damped more so than Curry's would.

Okay so
1)

a) I think there's a bit of a difference in approach here with how we do "era-translation". Not saying this applies to everything, but it seems to an extent you place a player in a different setting --before-- they become the player they are. My approach is to just drop them as they are somewhere else. The first approach feels like creating someone different (and depending on how far you go back(to their birth?), becomes more an exercise of creating a desired scenario as opposed to dealing with likelihoods). I'd rather just see how the final product translates though if we make it a career thing I can see the appeal of placing them in the draft as they were. Changing how they develop before that is a bridge too far for me. Regardless, I think I get your point here. Demand is influenced by knowledge of potential value rather than just the potential value. So players whose potential value is not recognized are given a pathway.

Looking at backwards translation, I will add that there is a point where that knowledge can be forced/directly shown. Like, if we're transporting the curry who has a 3-point shot(and I do think he has enough appeal to be drafted and put on a rotation). If he starts hitting 3's at a 40% to 50% rate, the appeal becomes obvious. And(at least the way im doing it) as curry has been letting these fly to successful returns, he'll probably be inclined to keep letting those fly and at some point it becomes extremely obvious to anyone who isn't outright terrible at their job that there's value in just letting him let things fly and so things progress. Even mark-jackson era shooting is game-changing I think here.

b) so again, depends on the approach to translation, but the way i'm doing it, the question would be if they have the skillset to get into the league/a rotation and then, to what extent, and over what time-scale can they develop "missing" skills to become more valuable or retain more of it over time.

d) Yeah I think we understand each other here then.

e) actually, I'm saying the opposite. With no adjustment for league-talent, Jokic's passing may hold less value in past eras because defenses were significantly worse at closing down passing angles(a combination of rules, talent, and institutional experience?) which led to "easier decisions" that you didn't necessarily need to be a great passer to execute on. There were less options and those options were easier to find, do elite decision making/passing isn't as "necessary" to exploit. I think this is part of why Hakeem was able to create more than say KG, Duncan, or Shaq in the postseason. The reads were relatively simple so it really came down to having the scoring pressure to create those reads and then good decision making. Me/Falco/Dray break down film for this here:
viewtopic.php?p=102962677#p102962677
viewtopic.php?p=102968824#p102968824
The idea is "good not great passers lose value" now. Translating back, this becomes "great not good passers lose value". Note that we're just focusing on passing skill, not the scoring threat. The idea is actually that scoring(and the way defenses adapt) itself was a bigger piece of the pie for creation than skill as a passer.

2)

a) well, I guess the question would be how long they would need to adapt and some of that comes down to where the adaption needs to come from. Is it just league rules, different schemes, different types of personnel, etc.

b) I agree there

[MyUniBroDavis]

^^^ just a bit of my input

I do think a lot of reads today that seem insane are simple or by design, but I also agree off ball defense doesn’t look great back then and a lot of windows that are like insane passes would be picked off more frequently today

When it comes to modern post offense, pretty much there are 2 things, outside of flat out doubles of course.


Where the help is coming from, and how you want to counter it

A lot of times we tend to believe it’s an example of having otherworldly awareness to spot cutters and stuff but generally it’s something ingrained into the offense

If the help is high (so from the wing) generally that player cuts. If the help is low, either one player set a pindown flare screen so you have a easy pass to the opposite corner for a really high quality three, or that screener can cut across and flash to the baseline or in front of players.

The wing cutter can also set the screen himself, it’s a pretty fringe thing to do but it works well, I only saw Caruso do it though so I don’t know if that was drilled

The difference is pretty drastic between teams that do this and teams that don’t. Iirc in terms of ppp, a “correct counter” for AD post ups in 2021 were something like 1.2ppp in terms of the result of the possession, incorrect or no counters were 0.8ppp or something along those lines, vogel wasn’t great in that regard, particularly against baseline help.

I’m not sure how much this helps jokic more or less relative to others. From what I know the nuggets are great at this, but Jokic does seem like a historic post scorer in a good situation, which isn’t different from what any of us would think

I do think relative to everyone else, a jokic today put to 1998-2005 might be the offensive GOAT compared to everyone else/competition.

Relative to everyone else Jokic is a Dirk level outlier as a post scorer, while being the best passing big by a far bigger margin than Magic’s gap as a passer to everyone else id think.

Like when evaluating Jokic as a scoring big, what we have is a guy that

Is a GOAT tier midrange shooting big, I would take Dirk but it’s in that level

Is 300 pounds (says he played at 294 recently I think) with extremely fluid footwork, and potentially the best touch ever as a big

The gap Jokic has over his peers (by peers I mean historic centers) as an offensive player is far larger than I think the gap either magic/Jordan/bron have over their peers.



The only area Jokic doesn’t have a GOAT argument in, is in league relative effeciency volume scoring.

Even then, he probably has an argument in ability. Kareem is the biggest outlier in this regard, and Jokic’s current season is fairly close in RTS and volume scoring to kareems peak, while being primarily known for his passing
Beyond that, it should be said that Jokic has probably hit the upper limit of how effecient you can be as an offensive player in general.


If we are talking raw ability, jokic has a semblance of an argument of being, ability wise

- the best post scoring big
- the best shooting big
- the best passing big
- the smartest offensive big

I wouldn’t really give him best scoring or best shooting, scoring wise Shaq and kareems raw volume combined with their effeciency win out for me, as for shooting I would still prefer Dirk.

I think the gap in passing extremely large, in the context of all time greats only currys shooting relative to peers is bigger. Ties into IQ as well

(This is NOT me saying Jokic is the best passer ever, this is me saying he is the best passing big ever).

I’m pretty low on Jokic’s peak even though I evaluate guys in an absolute sense, mostly because I do think if his defense is to the point that it’s as bad as it has been signaled to be in the playoffs it’s hard to give him the benefit of the doubt it drops him THAT much and it actually prevents him from winning to that extent, although if he puts together a string of runs showing it was noise (which is extremely possible in the context of the playoffs) I do think you can evaluate his peak to the absolute top tier guys in nba history

While I do think his on-off numbers overrate him slightly if you just use them with no context, regular season wise Jokic might be a top 5 peak type of guy.

One thing that needs to be said when evaluating Jokic is that regular season Jokic is not close to a negative player on defense, he has games where he is attacked and is negative but over the course of the season he’s actually a very strong one that’s very smart at pick and roll defensive reads to make up for his lack of quickness

It’s attacking him in spaced out p and r, not mobile coverages alone where he’s usually pretty effective, and drawing him out to do so that is an issue in the context of playoff basketball

It should be said though, jokic and Embiid (and 10 games of mvp AD hehe) are historical outliers in terms of their ability to score in the post, pretty much by a more consistent margin than Dirk over his prime per synergy iirc. Neither is clearly over the other I think, although Embiid is probably better at his raw ability to score if you ignore that with Jokic, defences need to account for his passing




Overall, I think the way Jokic translates back would be somewhat absurd. I think the defensive issues wouldn’t be glaring at all, and offensively I think he’d be a clear GOAT candidate

Even now he’s a genuine legit tier one all time offensive player potentially depending on how his playoff career pans out (with pretty encouraging offensive signs so far) in an era where the only other primarily post scoring superstar offensive player is Embiid, who would probably be a unstoppable offensive force relative to other bigs had he played in other eras (he IS one right now, but not in comparison to the perimeter guys and jokic)


Offensively speaking I’m still taking second stint cavs bron and Jordan and magic without too much thought, but Jokic could easily have that air of playoff reliability that pushes him above Curry for me in that regard, in an absolute sense at least

[Optms]

Back end of the top 20, possibly top 15 with a long career if he continues this level of play. He needs ring(s) to crack that top 12 though.

[Ron Swanson]

Where I have to put my foot down is with the "greatest shooting big ever" stuff. I get that Jokic is currently on an absolutely insane, prime Jordan-esque mid-range efficiency run the past two and a half seasons, but a couple things. 1) Zero argument for best "distance shooting big" (3PT efficiency + volume, 90% of 3PT attempts assisted for his career). 2) Scoring has ballooned to the point where three consecutive seasons of 25+ PPG on even Curry level hyper efficiency (64-69% TS) doesn't automatically give you an argument in my book. We're still dealing with an overall sample size of about 180 regular season games.

In the playoffs even though he's upped his volume the last 15-games (30-31 PPG), his scoring/shooting efficiency hasn't been as much of an outlier compared to his contemporaries ('21 Giannis, '20 Luka, '20 Lebron, '21 Kawhi), if at all. I'm just stopping short of the "He's Dirk/Larry Bird combined with Steve Nash" superlatives because I feel that's the tipping point where we're getting too caught in the moment. If you think a player is that unstoppable then forget about rings, something's seriously wrong if they're not anchoring 60+ win, 8+ SRS teams and consistently in contention for the Finals. I think this is a pretty big legacy defining season for Jokic regardless of whether he wins another MVP. Unless Murray re-tears his ACL or something crazy, the supporting cast argument doesn't loom very large anymore.

[OhayoKD]

2 MVP's (possibly 3) automatically gets you in the Top-50. Is this actually a serious question? I'll keep banging the drum that mediocre longevity (Solid All-Star but non-MVP caliber seasons) for the true all-time-greats is incredibly overrated. Like, cool, I don't care that someone like Paul Pierce or Scottie Pippen played nearly two decades when they never even came close to approaching the level of player that Jokic or Giannis is.

Ya I dont get how this can even be debatable. If Jokic and Giannis both retire after this year, both are locks to be top 50. Just looking at ESPN's latest top 75 players of all time.

Harden is at #50. Ya Id easily take Jokic and Giannis over Harden.
Ray Allen is at #47. Ya again easily take Jokic and Giannis over him. I get the longevity and stuff, but he only made 2 All NBA teams in his career (never made a 1st team). Jokic and Giannis are clearly the superior players.
Gary Payton is at #42. No denying he was a stud. But again was he as good as what we have seen from Jokic and Giannis? No. At minimum there is going to be 5 MVPs and 9 1st team All NBA between them by the end of the season. And that is all by the time theyre both 28 years old.

What has Jokic done to justify "easily" being taken over Harden

[OhayoKD]

"He's Dirk/Larry Bird combined with Steve Nash" superlatives because I feel that's the tipping point where we're getting too caught in the moment. If you think a player is that unstoppable then forget about rings, something's seriously wrong if they're not anchoring 60+ win, 8+ SRS teams and consistently in contention for the Finals. I think this is a pretty big legacy defining season for Jokic regardless of whether he wins another MVP. Unless Murray re-tears his ACL or something crazy, the supporting cast argument doesn't loom very large anymore.

Who in the thread said he's "dirk/bird/steve nash" combined?

[Ron Swanson]

"He's Dirk/Larry Bird combined with Steve Nash" superlatives because I feel that's the tipping point where we're getting too caught in the moment. If you think a player is that unstoppable then forget about rings, something's seriously wrong if they're not anchoring 60+ win, 8+ SRS teams and consistently in contention for the Finals. I think this is a pretty big legacy defining season for Jokic regardless of whether he wins another MVP. Unless Murray re-tears his ACL or something crazy, the supporting cast argument doesn't loom very large anymore.

Who in the thread said he's "dirk/bird/steve nash" combined?

I was paraphrasing, and the Bird + Dirk hybrid has definitely been thrown around in Jokic threads.