’94 Hakeem Olajuwon vs ’23 Nikola Jokic

[70sFan]

Taylor may not be quite that explicit, but he notes KD isn't as good as he used to be post achilles, noting worse ability as a penetrator and on D, then says his high end evaluation of this non-peak KD would be #1.

He also noted that his playmaking and shooting improved, don't focus only on things that back up your claim. These ranges should not conclude you to the idea that Ben would have peak KD at the number one.

His evaluation of Jokic could be cut and paste into 2023, except for the playoff D concerns, and I don't really think Jokic is much different; only his circumstances are.

Jokic isn't much different than 2022, but he's definitely better than 2021 on both ends of the floor.

We disagree at any rate, but the idea you advanced that Jokic had overtaken Durant's peak 3 years ago is clearly a fringe view.

Well by "3 years ago" I meant 2020/21 season and I don't think it's an unreasonable take. Jokic already was more complete offensive player at that point and I don't think KD's defense is anything to rave about.

My view certainly isn't more "fringe" than your that you shouldn't compare Jokic to Durant.

[frica]

Durant may be 6'10 in the morning, but the reality is he's probably 6'9.5 most of the day.
Looks taller due to his proportions.

I don't think Davis is a full 6'10 either.
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/john-wall-paul-george-kevin-love-kevin-durant-anthony-davis-andre-picture-id920096504?s=2048x2048

Jokic used to be listed at 6'10, but maybe that was when he was still a young 20?
Definitely looks slightly taller, but not a true 7'0 either.

Anyway, true 7 footers are getting rarer with the rule changes either way.
https://img.aijaa.com/b/00983/15148461.jpg

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Take a step back and be real with me. Would the Nuggets this year have been a top 4 team in any of the years 2016 to 2018? Teams like Harden's Rockets would have spanked Jokic in round 2, and nobody is even entertaining Harden as a top 20 all-time player.

I don't think the Nuggets are very strong champions, so I agree with you.

I would put them behind the 2017 and 2018 Warrioris but then we can argue on anybody in the last 20 years.
In terms of what team actually was fielded in the playoffs and how it was going to match up against the competition.
As for this Jokic vs Hakeem comparison, I am fine if someone picks a different team but the "not even cclose"are imo out of touch.

[70sFan]

Take a step back and be real with me. Would the Nuggets this year have been a top 4 team in any of the years 2016 to 2018? Teams like Harden's Rockets would have spanked Jokic in round 2, and nobody is even entertaining Harden as a top 20 all-time player.

I don't think the Nuggets are very strong champions, so I agree with you.

I would put them behind the 2017 and 2018 Warrioris but then we can argue on anybody in the last 20 years.
In terms of what team actually was fielded in the playoffs and how it was going to match up against the competition.
As for this Jokic vs Hakeem comparison, I am fine if someone picks a different team but the "not even cclose"are imo out of touch.

I don't think I agree with that, they were quite dominant in the playoffs but they also faced relatively weak competition. Out of the last 20 years, I'd definitely pick 2005 Spurs, 2007 Spurs, 2008 Celtics, 2009 Lakers, 2013 Heat, 2014 Spurs, 2016 Cavs, 2017-18 Warriors and 2019 Raptors ahead of them (maybe 2015 Warriors and 2020 Lakers as well). That makes them around average for title teams of the last 20 years and I think that's true.

[AdagioPace]

Take a step back and be real with me. Would the Nuggets this year have been a top 4 team in any of the years 2016 to 2018? Teams like Harden's Rockets would have spanked Jokic in round 2, and nobody is even entertaining Harden as a top 20 all-time player.

I don't think the Nuggets are very strong champions, so I agree with you.

I would put them behind the 2017 and 2018 Warrioris but then we can argue on anybody in the last 20 years.
In terms of what team actually was fielded in the playoffs and how it was going to match up against the competition.
As for this Jokic vs Hakeem comparison, I am fine if someone picks a different team but the "not even cclose"are imo out of touch.

do 2023 Nuggets, in your opinion, belong to the "Lakers 2001, Cavs 2017" family of relatively underwhelming RS (historically speaking when you look at SRS) but impressive PS?

[ardee]

I think they're both in the 5-8 range for peaks (tho Hakeem is probably 5 and Jokic is probably 8). Jokic is significantly better on offense and 'Keem is significantly better on defense.

For now I'll go with Dream but if Jokic's normal defensive level can approach what he did in the last two games of the Finals, well, then it becomes a discussion.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I don't think the Nuggets are very strong champions, so I agree with you.

I would put them behind the 2017 and 2018 Warrioris but then we can argue on anybody in the last 20 years.
In terms of what team actually was fielded in the playoffs and how it was going to match up against the competition.
As for this Jokic vs Hakeem comparison, I am fine if someone picks a different team but the "not even cclose"are imo out of touch.

do 2023 Nuggets, in your opinion, belong to the "Lakers 2001, Cavs 2017" family of relatively underwhelming RS (historically speaking when you look at SRS) but impressive PS?

There are a few things to consider whenever you see an non elite RS team having a dominant PS run, because you must always understand if a) it was a fluke fueled by some crazy shooting, b) the competition was real and not full of paper tigers (overachieving in RS, ruined by injuries), c) there are good reasons why the record was not so spectacular and you could see the seeds in the Rs, at least using hindsight

In my view the field was objectively weak, but it was also clear to me throughout the season were much better than their record:
1) they were absolutely dominant with Jokic on the floor while losing his off minutes
2) they were experimenting and playing with food in the Jokic off minutes but they could just change gear in the 4th, in particular on defense
3) I've seen so many different ways they used Jokic on defense, in the 4th or in high leverage games, that were somehow hinting at what we saw later
4) Murray started the season very slow, he was one of the reasons the Jokic off minutes were weak
5) Jokic was COASTING throughout the RS and dominating
6) the Nuggets absolutely too their foot off the pedal in March

I was actually pretty sure the Nuggets were winning the west based on the fact that Jokic would have played more and that everybody would have gone small and with tighter rotations in the Playoffs.
Once I saw Bubble Murray being summoned again against Minnesota they became for the clear favorites to win it all.
That version of the team is competitive in almost every season, in my view, and in a sustainable way.
Good defense and absolutely unstoppable offense, I see no reason to take them as huge underdogs if not not again historic teams like those Warriors.

[SilentA]

I'm taking Hakeem by a bit, but it is indeed close and would depend on the rest of the roster. There is a clear gap in offense between the two in Jokic's favour (factoring in playmaking, efficiency and scoring), and a defensive gap in favour of Hakeem. But the defense gap is a bit bigger even if Jokic was a decent defender this playoffs.

[ty 4191]

..

Wanted to get your nuanced thoughts, as always. A few questions:

1. 70's, who's a better/more valuable player, Jokic the past 3 years, or, Hakeem in his prime?

2. Who is the most skilled center?

3. Who's more versatile?

Thanks in advance for your insight and acuity/acumen. Much appreciated!!

[VanWest82]

I don't think the Nuggets are very strong champions, so I agree with you.

I would put them behind the 2017 and 2018 Warrioris but then we can argue on anybody in the last 20 years.
In terms of what team actually was fielded in the playoffs and how it was going to match up against the competition.
As for this Jokic vs Hakeem comparison, I am fine if someone picks a different team but the "not even cclose"are imo out of touch.

I don't think I agree with that, they were quite dominant in the playoffs but they also faced relatively weak competition. Out of the last 20 years, I'd definitely pick 2005 Spurs, 2007 Spurs, 2008 Celtics, 2009 Lakers, 2013 Heat, 2014 Spurs, 2016 Cavs, 2017-18 Warriors and 2019 Raptors ahead of them (maybe 2015 Warriors and 2020 Lakers as well). That makes them around average for title teams of the last 20 years and I think that's true.

Given strength of their supporting cast, Jokic puts them in line with all of the above teams except 17&18 Warriors. Like, how many records does he need to break to get that kind of respect? Him and Murray were better than peak Shaq and Kobe offensively.

How are you measuring their competition? I don't think we can use tradtional measurements (e.g. SRS) given how the season played out. Post trade Lakers had the second best record in the league post all star break (minus Lebron for a good chunk) and we hardly got to see the KD Suns (8-0) until the playoffs due to his ankle injury. As for Heat, they knocked off the two best teams in the East and have made three conference Finals and two Finals in the last four years, and they were a missed Butler three from three Finals. This season more than any I can remember was one where regular season performance meant absolutely nothing in relation to ranking not only the best teams but how good those teams actually were. Welcome to the sandbag era.

[VanWest82]

The other thing that's underrated about the Denver playoff run was how varied their opponents were. Suns were an offensive juggernaut. Lakers were a defensive juggernaut. Heat were just a super well coached, weird janky team playing janky zone who slowed you down and mucked up what you're doing on both ends. This is what's so great (or used to be great) about NBA. Match ups matter, and so when you see a team take a hot knife through a bunch of different playing styles and opposing superstars it represents real validation when they win. And they didn't have to team up and collude and back room deal to make it happen. There's real greatness in what they did.

[AEnigma]

Yeah I miss when NBA champions were just about naturally having the most talented team and waltzing through a disposable collection of career loser opponents. That was real basketball.

[70sFan]

1. 70's, who's a better/more valuable player, Jokic the past 3 years, or, Hakeem in his prime?

It's certainly close and depends on what you exactly mean by"valuable" (as well as depending on how you view context of this value), but for now I'd slightly prefer 1993-95 Hakeem over 2021-23 Jokic. It is close and I understand Jokic arguments though.

2. Who is the most skilled center?

You need to define what "skills" mean to you.

3. Who's more versatile?

Jokic offensively, Hakeem defensively. Both are very clear to me.

Overall, Hakeem was more versatile offensively than Jokic defensively (though I'm not that high on Hakeem's versatility on offense), so you'd probably give Hakeem edge.

[70sFan]

I would put them behind the 2017 and 2018 Warrioris but then we can argue on anybody in the last 20 years.
In terms of what team actually was fielded in the playoffs and how it was going to match up against the competition.
As for this Jokic vs Hakeem comparison, I am fine if someone picks a different team but the "not even cclose"are imo out of touch.

I don't think I agree with that, they were quite dominant in the playoffs but they also faced relatively weak competition. Out of the last 20 years, I'd definitely pick 2005 Spurs, 2007 Spurs, 2008 Celtics, 2009 Lakers, 2013 Heat, 2014 Spurs, 2016 Cavs, 2017-18 Warriors and 2019 Raptors ahead of them (maybe 2015 Warriors and 2020 Lakers as well). That makes them around average for title teams of the last 20 years and I think that's true.

Given strength of their supporting cast, Jokic puts them in line with all of the above teams except 17&18 Warriors. Like, how many records does he need to break to get that kind of respect? Him and Murray were better than peak Shaq and Kobe offensively.

How are you measuring their competition? I don't think we can use tradtional measurements (e.g. SRS) given how the season played out. Post trade Lakers had the second best record in the league post all star break (minus Lebron for a good chunk) and we hardly got to see the KD Suns (8-0) until the playoffs due to his ankle injury. As for Heat, they knocked off the two best teams in the East and have made three conference Finals and two Finals in the last four years, and they were a missed Butler three from three Finals. This season more than any I can remember was one where regular season performance meant absolutely nothing in relation to ranking not only the best teams but how good those teams actually were. Welcome to the sandbag era.

I mean, isn't the way people use to talk how untalented and bad late 1970s was as an era? Suddenly, people started changing narratives because they became witnesses of something similar.

No, I don't see any of the teams Suns faced as remarkably talented. Suns were injured, inexperienced team with no depth. Lakers were a strong dark hose, but they wouldn't be a serious title candidate in any run with James age and injury. Heat story was amazing and theu were legit, but it's still not a strong finalist team.

I also strongly disagree that Jokic and Murray were more dominant offensively than 2001 Kobe and Shaq.

[One_and_Done]

Beal trade makes it even more certain this goes down as a 2006 Heat type 'one off' title. Looking forward to the championship having a bit more weight again.

[VanWest82]

I mean, isn't the way people use to talk how untalented and bad late 1970s was as an era? Suddenly, people started changing narratives because they became witnesses of something similar.

I'm not following your logic. Are you arguing that 70s guys stopped doing blow in the playoffs and therefore it's similar to today teams sandbagging RS?

Teams with a history of very strong postseason play outplaying their record and teams getting remade in the middle of the season to become much stronger teams need to be evaluated a little differently.

No, I don't see any of the teams Suns faced as remarkably talented. Suns were injured, inexperienced team with no depth. Lakers were a strong dark hose, but they wouldn't be a serious title candidate in any run with James age and injury. Heat story was amazing and theu were legit, but it's still not a strong finalist team.

Interesting that the games Suns won were games CP didn't play. I agree they were thin but they were also the only team to take two from the Nuggets all playoffs. Good depth or not, it's not easy beating teams with two superstars and third #1 overall pick max guy. As for Lakers, they were probably the second best team in the playoffs and old, injured Lebron was still able to average an efficient 25/10/6 while playing surprisingly good defense. AD looked like the best defensive player on the planet until Jokic got him. And unlike Suns, Lakers actually were pretty deep.

I also strongly disagree that Jokic and Murray were more dominant offensively than 2001 Kobe and Shaq.

Per 100 playoffs, 23 vs 01:

Murray: 33.2 pts, 9.0 ast, 3.2 tov, +3 rTS
Kobe: 35.4 pts, 7.3 ast, 3.8 tov, +5 rTS

Jokic: 38.7 pts, 12.2 ast, 4.5 tov, +8 rTS
Shaq: 37.6 pts, 3.9 ast, 4.4 tov, +6 rTS

You could certainly make the argument that Kobe > Murray, but Jokic > Shaq is an easier one. Again, this is just offense.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I refuse to believe I just saw someone say “the Suns had a #1 pick” in trying to justify that team

[uberhikari]

I refuse to believe I just saw someone say “the Suns had a #1 pick” in trying to justify that team

I didn't even have to search to find who you were talking about. That's why VanWest is on my ignore list.

[thekdog34]

Hakeem's somewhat lower TS% (in the regular season) was more from somewhat lower free throw attempts rather than tough shots. And his efficiency increased significantly in the playoffs as fewer fouls called didn't seem to affect him.

Jokic's efficiency dropped a bit in the playoffs but it's hard to interpret as a "real" drop as it remained astronomically high.

[migya]

The other thing that's underrated about the Denver playoff run was how varied their opponents were. Suns were an offensive juggernaut. Lakers were a defensive juggernaut. Heat were just a super well coached, weird janky team playing janky zone who slowed you down and mucked up what you're doing on both ends. This is what's so great (or used to be great) about NBA. Match ups matter, and so when you see a team take a hot knife through a bunch of different playing styles and opposing superstars it represents real validation when they win. And they didn't have to team up and collude and back room deal to make it happen. There's real greatness in what they did.

94 Rockets probably have the most impressive run in beating quality opponents than anyone. They beat prime and still young Stockton and Malone Jazz, prime Barkley and KJ Suns, mvp Robinson Spurs and young but star Shaq and Penny.