Jokic and the Walton question

[ceiling raiser]

There’s been a not insignificant portion of the fanbase that has long championed Bill Walton’s peak as something near the pinnacle of basketball.

Walton was the yin to Kareem’s yang: a guy who could dominate without leading the league in scoring, with incredibly high BBIQ and amazing technical passing skills. Coupled with a very good post game and midrange jumper, he was a force to be reckoned with when he could stay on the court.

Jokic is almost an evolutionary version of Walton on that end. Better range and more consistent jumper. More prolific a passer, and more mobile in the two- and three-man game. Better offensive rebounding.

Of course, Walton was a solid-to-elite defender, while Jokic is still a work in progress on that end. But he is improving each year, and defending today in space is more difficult than ever.

Now to the point of the thread —

How does the legend of Walton inform your view of Jokic? Conversely, how does Jokic’s success frame Walton’s potential in the current NBA?

[SNPA]

Both wannabe Vlade’s.

…….

This era helps Jokic because no one is playing defense and center defense matters less anyhow when the game is a three point contest.

[Doctor MJ]

There’s been a not insignificant portion of the fanbase that has long championed Bill Walton’s peak as something near the pinnacle of basketball.

Walton was the yin to Kareem’s yang: a guy who could dominate without leading the league in scoring, with incredibly high BBIQ and amazing technical passing skills. Coupled with a very good post game and midrange jumper, he was a force to be reckoned with when he could stay on the court.

Jokic is almost an evolutionary version of Walton on that end. Better range and more consistent jumper. More prolific a passer, and more mobile in the two- and three-man game. Better offensive rebounding.

Of course, Walton was a solid-to-elite defender, while Jokic is still a work in progress on that end. But he is improving each year, and defending today in space is more difficult than ever.

Now to the point of the thread —

How does the legend of Walton inform your view of Jokic? Conversely, how does Jokic’s success frame Walton’s potential in the current NBA?

Love the topic.

First: I think Walton was more than a "solid-to-elite defender". I think at his best, he was the best in the league at it.

To the questions:

It absolutely informs what I look at when I see Jokic, and Jokic's success then informs backward to guys like Walton in the past who were of this type.

Folks prolly role their eyes when I bring up guys from the deep past, but we really do know who the original Walton/Jokic was - it was Dutch Dehnert in the 1920s. A Dehnert/Walton/Jokic Pivot style of play really did become the dominant paradigm for elite basketball for more than a decade about 90 years ago, and the sport moved away from it. I find that to be so fascinating.

[ceiling raiser]

There’s been a not insignificant portion of the fanbase that has long championed Bill Walton’s peak as something near the pinnacle of basketball.

Walton was the yin to Kareem’s yang: a guy who could dominate without leading the league in scoring, with incredibly high BBIQ and amazing technical passing skills. Coupled with a very good post game and midrange jumper, he was a force to be reckoned with when he could stay on the court.

Jokic is almost an evolutionary version of Walton on that end. Better range and more consistent jumper. More prolific a passer, and more mobile in the two- and three-man game. Better offensive rebounding.

Of course, Walton was a solid-to-elite defender, while Jokic is still a work in progress on that end. But he is improving each year, and defending today in space is more difficult than ever.

Now to the point of the thread —

How does the legend of Walton inform your view of Jokic? Conversely, how does Jokic’s success frame Walton’s potential in the current NBA?

Love the topic.

First: I think Walton was more than a "solid-to-elite defender". I think at his best, he was the best in the league at it.

To the questions:

It absolutely informs what I look at when I see Jokic, and Jokic's success then informs backward to guys like Walton in the past who were of this type.

Folks prolly role their eyes when I bring up guys from the deep past, but we really do know who the original Walton/Jokic was - it was Dutch Dehnert in the 1920s. A Dehnert/Walton/Jokic Pivot style of play really did become the dominant paradigm for elite basketball for more than a decade about 90 years ago, and the sport moved away from it. I find that to be so fascinating.

The 67-68 and 68-69 Lakers were built for that kind of center, but unfortunately neither Imhoff nor Wilt had the requisite skillset.

Anybody else come to mind?

[ShaqAttac]

There’s been a not insignificant portion of the fanbase that has long championed Bill Walton’s peak as something near the pinnacle of basketball.

Walton was the yin to Kareem’s yang: a guy who could dominate without leading the league in scoring, with incredibly high BBIQ and amazing technical passing skills. Coupled with a very good post game and midrange jumper, he was a force to be reckoned with when he could stay on the court.

Jokic is almost an evolutionary version of Walton on that end. Better range and more consistent jumper. More prolific a passer, and more mobile in the two- and three-man game. Better offensive rebounding.

Of course, Walton was a solid-to-elite defender, while Jokic is still a work in progress on that end. But he is improving each year, and defending today in space is more difficult than ever.

Now to the point of the thread —

How does the legend of Walton inform your view of Jokic? Conversely, how does Jokic’s success frame Walton’s potential in the current NBA?

Love the topic.

First: I think Walton was more than a "solid-to-elite defender". I think at his best, he was the best in the league at it.

To the questions:

It absolutely informs what I look at when I see Jokic, and Jokic's success then informs backward to guys like Walton in the past who were of this type.

Folks prolly role their eyes when I bring up guys from the deep past, but we really do know who the original Walton/Jokic was - it was Dutch Dehnert in the 1920s. A Dehnert/Walton/Jokic Pivot style of play really did become the dominant paradigm for elite basketball for more than a decade about 90 years ago, and the sport moved away from it. I find that to be so fascinating.

was dutch da best player? how his "impact" comp to russ n bron n mikan

[Doctor MJ]

There’s been a not insignificant portion of the fanbase that has long championed Bill Walton’s peak as something near the pinnacle of basketball.

Walton was the yin to Kareem’s yang: a guy who could dominate without leading the league in scoring, with incredibly high BBIQ and amazing technical passing skills. Coupled with a very good post game and midrange jumper, he was a force to be reckoned with when he could stay on the court.

Jokic is almost an evolutionary version of Walton on that end. Better range and more consistent jumper. More prolific a passer, and more mobile in the two- and three-man game. Better offensive rebounding.

Of course, Walton was a solid-to-elite defender, while Jokic is still a work in progress on that end. But he is improving each year, and defending today in space is more difficult than ever.

Now to the point of the thread —

How does the legend of Walton inform your view of Jokic? Conversely, how does Jokic’s success frame Walton’s potential in the current NBA?

Love the topic.

First: I think Walton was more than a "solid-to-elite defender". I think at his best, he was the best in the league at it.

To the questions:

It absolutely informs what I look at when I see Jokic, and Jokic's success then informs backward to guys like Walton in the past who were of this type.

Folks prolly role their eyes when I bring up guys from the deep past, but we really do know who the original Walton/Jokic was - it was Dutch Dehnert in the 1920s. A Dehnert/Walton/Jokic Pivot style of play really did become the dominant paradigm for elite basketball for more than a decade about 90 years ago, and the sport moved away from it. I find that to be so fascinating.

The 67-68 and 68-69 Lakers were built for that kind of center, but unfortunately neither Imhoff nor Wilt had the requisite skillset.

Anybody else come to mind?

As guys like Dehnert/Walton/Jokic?

Tarzan Cooper - star pivot of the New York Rens in the '30s
Goose Tatum - star pivot of the Harlem Globetrotters in the '40s when they a top competitive team
Sweetwater Clifton - star pivot of the Rens & Globetrotters in the late '40s
Connie Hawkins - learned a funhouse form of the pivot with the later Globetrotters, refined and brought it with him to the ABA.

And of course, there's a pretty clear trend here that raises some questions.

[eminence]

I think of Mikan as playing a bit of the pivot role.

[penbeast0]

There’s been a not insignificant portion of the fanbase that has long championed Bill Walton’s peak as something near the pinnacle of basketball.

Walton was the yin to Kareem’s yang: a guy who could dominate without leading the league in scoring, with incredibly high BBIQ and amazing technical passing skills. Coupled with a very good post game and midrange jumper, he was a force to be reckoned with when he could stay on the court.

Jokic is almost an evolutionary version of Walton on that end. Better range and more consistent jumper. More prolific a passer, and more mobile in the two- and three-man game. Better offensive rebounding.

Of course, Walton was a solid-to-elite defender, while Jokic is still a work in progress on that end. But he is improving each year, and defending today in space is more difficult than ever.

Now to the point of the thread —

How does the legend of Walton inform your view of Jokic? Conversely, how does Jokic’s success frame Walton’s potential in the current NBA?

Love the topic.

First: I think Walton was more than a "solid-to-elite defender". I think at his best, he was the best in the league at it.

To the questions:

It absolutely informs what I look at when I see Jokic, and Jokic's success then informs backward to guys like Walton in the past who were of this type.

Folks prolly role their eyes when I bring up guys from the deep past, but we really do know who the original Walton/Jokic was - it was Dutch Dehnert in the 1920s. A Dehnert/Walton/Jokic Pivot style of play really did become the dominant paradigm for elite basketball for more than a decade about 90 years ago, and the sport moved away from it. I find that to be so fascinating.

The 67-68 and 68-69 Lakers were built for that kind of center, but unfortunately neither Imhoff nor Wilt had the requisite skillset.

Anybody else come to mind?

67 Sixers used Wilt in that role with pretty impressive success before breaking down in 68. Russell's Celtics used him to great success in a pivot role as Cousy's role decreased and then he retired though Russell didn't present a significant scoring threat with any consistency.

[Doctor MJ]

I think of Mikan as playing a bit of the pivot role.

I would see him as the next evolution beyond/of the pivot model. Mikan's primary focus was getting the ball and shooting the ball. If you're effective enough at scoring, then a passing focus makes less sense, and until the widened the key, Mikan was extremely effective at scoring.

[Heej]

There’s been a not insignificant portion of the fanbase that has long championed Bill Walton’s peak as something near the pinnacle of basketball.

Walton was the yin to Kareem’s yang: a guy who could dominate without leading the league in scoring, with incredibly high BBIQ and amazing technical passing skills. Coupled with a very good post game and midrange jumper, he was a force to be reckoned with when he could stay on the court.

Jokic is almost an evolutionary version of Walton on that end. Better range and more consistent jumper. More prolific a passer, and more mobile in the two- and three-man game. Better offensive rebounding.

Of course, Walton was a solid-to-elite defender, while Jokic is still a work in progress on that end. But he is improving each year, and defending today in space is more difficult than ever.

Now to the point of the thread —

How does the legend of Walton inform your view of Jokic? Conversely, how does Jokic’s success frame Walton’s potential in the current NBA?

Love the topic.

First: I think Walton was more than a "solid-to-elite defender". I think at his best, he was the best in the league at it.

To the questions:

It absolutely informs what I look at when I see Jokic, and Jokic's success then informs backward to guys like Walton in the past who were of this type.

Folks prolly role their eyes when I bring up guys from the deep past, but we really do know who the original Walton/Jokic was - it was Dutch Dehnert in the 1920s. A Dehnert/Walton/Jokic Pivot style of play really did become the dominant paradigm for elite basketball for more than a decade about 90 years ago, and the sport moved away from it. I find that to be so fascinating.

The 67-68 and 68-69 Lakers were built for that kind of center, but unfortunately neither Imhoff nor Wilt had the requisite skillset.

Anybody else come to mind?

Imo Russell's pivot passing was his most underrated skill. He was basically a Draymond/AD combo where his defense was the best of both, and his offense was essentially Draymond's passing+ADs ORebs. He functioned as a cornerstone of their offense just like Draymond has.

[rk2023]

Walton for sure. Analysis wise, HCL hit the nail on the head and I don’t think I could have said it better. A great player is a great player in any era, and this holds true with Walton. Blazer-mania and “running” a more egalitarian offense through Walton and multiple scoring options is a tactical approach I feel would fare well in todays game.

I could see him being a better Sabonis on offense in today’s game with his off-ball scoring acumen tapped into more than it was at his apex. Couple that with being the best rebounder and defender in the league perhaps, and you have a sure fire MVP level of impact player as far as I’m concerned.

^^^ What I mentioned regarding Walton’s modern day translation in an older and somewhat similar thread.

To expand on the rest asked, I see Jokic more as a supersized variant of Larry Bird on offense (much better and harder to stop scorer) rather than Walton being a “proto-Jokic” / Jokic being Walton++. With that being said, part of why I enjoy basketball history (and history in general) is the evolution of success, especially through acquisition/furthering of ‘best practices’.

I think Jokic has taken the very scalable aspects and ability to have a high impact on a game through many different box scores from Walton and (being a better offensive talent) re-vision them - such as a stellar put-back game, interior passing and enabling guards/wings, moving into shorter ‘jumpers’. I don’t see too many similarities aside from that, as the two are fundamentally different players.

[70sFan]

Love the topic.

First: I think Walton was more than a "solid-to-elite defender". I think at his best, he was the best in the league at it.

To the questions:

It absolutely informs what I look at when I see Jokic, and Jokic's success then informs backward to guys like Walton in the past who were of this type.

Folks prolly role their eyes when I bring up guys from the deep past, but we really do know who the original Walton/Jokic was - it was Dutch Dehnert in the 1920s. A Dehnert/Walton/Jokic Pivot style of play really did become the dominant paradigm for elite basketball for more than a decade about 90 years ago, and the sport moved away from it. I find that to be so fascinating.

The 67-68 and 68-69 Lakers were built for that kind of center, but unfortunately neither Imhoff nor Wilt had the requisite skillset.

Anybody else come to mind?

As guys like Dehnert/Walton/Jokic?

Tarzan Cooper - star pivot of the New York Rens in the '30s
Goose Tatum - star pivot of the Harlem Globetrotters in the '40s when they a top competitive team
Sweetwater Clifton - star pivot of the Rens & Globetrotters in the late '40s
Connie Hawkins - learned a funhouse form of the pivot with the later Globetrotters, refined and brought it with him to the ABA.

And of course, there's a pretty clear trend here that raises some questions.

There were a lot of these type of pivot playmakers in the 1970s NBA. Basically half of the league had some type of such player at some point of the decade.

[DQuinn1575]

THe Bulls under Motta, the Kings under his disciple Johnson both played with the ball and cutters off the post. The Wilt Lakers did to a fair amount in 72-73, the Suns used Adams somewhat differently than the pivot, but lots of passing off the high post.
It was used a lot in the 70s, but the style changed with the advent of Magic and Bird.

[ShaqAttac]

jok is too gud. i apologize for doubtin

[SHAQ32]

Rony Seikaly with a green light.

[Doctor MJ]

Love the topic.

First: I think Walton was more than a "solid-to-elite defender". I think at his best, he was the best in the league at it.

To the questions:

It absolutely informs what I look at when I see Jokic, and Jokic's success then informs backward to guys like Walton in the past who were of this type.

Folks prolly role their eyes when I bring up guys from the deep past, but we really do know who the original Walton/Jokic was - it was Dutch Dehnert in the 1920s. A Dehnert/Walton/Jokic Pivot style of play really did become the dominant paradigm for elite basketball for more than a decade about 90 years ago, and the sport moved away from it. I find that to be so fascinating.

was dutch da best player? how his "impact" comp to russ n bron n mikan

I missed this before, my apologies.

When we're talking about guys from the 1920s actual quantitative analysis is impossible so we're really just talking about interpreting the stories passed down to us a long with scatterings of data. We can say confidently of course that a 6'1" big would not be able to compete with the Waltons and Jokices of the world, but even knowing if Dehnert was actually the best player in the world with confidence is impossible.

What we can say is this:

The Original Celtics of the 1920s were seen as the premier team in all of basketball.

The signature thing they were known for above all else was the innovation of the Pivot play, which quickly spread all through the basketball world.

The Pivot play came out of them realizing how effective it was to play through Dehnert because of his uncanny capacity as a passer recognizing and capitalizing on openings to get the ball to his cutting teammates.

I'll also note that early Boston Celtic Dutch Garfinkel was Jewish. Why was he called "Dutch"? Because he was an exceptional passer. (And to be clear, while the Boston Celtics were likely named in part because the earlier Original Celtics, they were not the same team, and the earlier team was a New York team.)

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I agree that Jokic looks more like a buffed Larry Bird than Bill Walton.
He has an element of on ball game and decisions off the move that you don't see in centers

[Ambrose]

Love the topic.

First: I think Walton was more than a "solid-to-elite defender". I think at his best, he was the best in the league at it.

To the questions:

It absolutely informs what I look at when I see Jokic, and Jokic's success then informs backward to guys like Walton in the past who were of this type.

Folks prolly role their eyes when I bring up guys from the deep past, but we really do know who the original Walton/Jokic was - it was Dutch Dehnert in the 1920s. A Dehnert/Walton/Jokic Pivot style of play really did become the dominant paradigm for elite basketball for more than a decade about 90 years ago, and the sport moved away from it. I find that to be so fascinating.

The 67-68 and 68-69 Lakers were built for that kind of center, but unfortunately neither Imhoff nor Wilt had the requisite skillset.

Anybody else come to mind?

Imo Russell's pivot passing was his most underrated skill. He was basically a Draymond/AD combo where his defense was the best of both, and his offense was essentially Draymond's passing+ADs ORebs. He functioned as a cornerstone of their offense just like Draymond has.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Bill Russell was not an advanced playmaker by any means, nowhere near Draymond, he was turnover prone, and offenses that ran through him were consistently bad.

[Heej]

The 67-68 and 68-69 Lakers were built for that kind of center, but unfortunately neither Imhoff nor Wilt had the requisite skillset.

Anybody else come to mind?

Imo Russell's pivot passing was his most underrated skill. He was basically a Draymond/AD combo where his defense was the best of both, and his offense was essentially Draymond's passing+ADs ORebs. He functioned as a cornerstone of their offense just like Draymond has.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Bill Russell was not an advanced playmaker by any means, nowhere near Draymond, he was turnover prone, and offenses that ran through him were consistently bad.

To me the team offense is easily explained by the fact that those Celtics teams while having a few scorers in their various iterations (cousy/sharman, Jones/havlicek) the rest of their cast was still very much defensive focused.

As far as passing skills go, Draymond imo just grew up in a better era for it and thus looks better for it. I don't find him to be any more of an era-specific outlier as a playmaking big than Russell was vs his contemporaries. Offenses were also far less complex then. It looks incredibly impressive to see Draymond thread a pass when someone jumps out to the wrong guy off a split cut, but the read is relatively simple. Back in Russell's time a lot of the pivot passing just led to a pitchback to a guard running near them so it looks less impressive.

He was still probably the 2nd or 3rd best outlet passer of his era and overall the best big at leading the break. We can agree to disagree tho because I can understand why you'd think that with how stale a lot of the action from that time looked.

[70sFan]

The 67-68 and 68-69 Lakers were built for that kind of center, but unfortunately neither Imhoff nor Wilt had the requisite skillset.

Anybody else come to mind?

Imo Russell's pivot passing was his most underrated skill. He was basically a Draymond/AD combo where his defense was the best of both, and his offense was essentially Draymond's passing+ADs ORebs. He functioned as a cornerstone of their offense just like Draymond has.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Bill Russell was not an advanced playmaker by any means, nowhere near Draymond, he was turnover prone, and offenses that ran through him were consistently bad.

Do you have any evidences of Russell being turnover prone?