Better peak: Kevin Garnett vs Nikola Jokic

[nate33]

C'mon now. Peak vs peak, this is a no-brainer: Jokic.

Jokic was league MVP 2 years in a row and should have won it 3 years in a row. And he just led a team to a title with nobody else on the roster even making an All-Star game. That's clearly better than anything KG in his peak.

[LukaTheGOAT]

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

Not really. I stand by my take of being more impressed with Jokic. His work scoring the ball was wonderful against GSW, and something that translates in a vacuum. I think GSW, were a unique poor matchup for Jokic, and Denver still not having the best defensive infrastructure made him look as badly as possible.

I think the 03 and 04 losses, just made me feel that on offense, KG was a swiss-army, Jack of all trades, master of none (except passing); that passing he can't consistently leverage on offense, due to his not great first step and ability to drive to the rim. I leave those series more questioning, KG's true optimized role on offense, and how valuable that even is in this case.

[Peregrine01]

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

Not really. I stand by my take of being more impressed with Jokic. His work scoring the ball was wonderful against GSW, and something that translates in a vacuum. I think GSW, were a unique poor matchup for Jokic, and Denver still not having the best defensive infrastructure made him look as badly as possible.

I think the 03 and 04 losses, just made me feel that on offense, KG was a swiss-army, Jack of all trades, master of none (except passing); that passing he can't consistently leverage on offense, due to his not great first step and ability to drive to the rim. I leave those series more questioning, KG's true optimized role on offense, and how valuable that even is in this case.

Against the Lakers in 03 and 04, Minny scored on an ORTG of 105 in both series. This against a team that allowed 105 and 101 in the RS. The second highest scorers in each of those series? Troy Hudson at 24 ppg and Spreewell at 21 ppg.

Against the Warriors in 22, Nuggets scored on an ORTG of 115. This against a team that was first in the league, allowing 107 in the RS. The bare-boned Nuggets performed better against the Warriors defense than any team that the Warriors faced in their title run. The second highest scorer on the Nuggets in that series? Monte Morris at 14 ppg.

However better KG is on defense just doesn't make up the chasm between the two on offense.

[Jaivl]

I may take Jokic here, guys.

[70sFan]

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

RAPM studies show him to be elite offensive player, though not among the very best of the last 25 years of course.

What do you mean by RPM being more "advanced"? Do we even know the methodology and code behind it?

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

That doesn't help Jokic I am afraid, because bigs also tend to be more impactful on defense, meaning Jokic looks even worse relative to his position defensively.

As for teams attacking Jokic, it is of course standard NBA offense to attack a big man off a pick and roll. You could say the same thing about really great defenders, like Embiid, Gobert, etc. Allowing a guard to attack a big man in space is a big part of the entire point of the game’s most basic play!

That's not the same thing though, teams didn't attack Gobert at all during his peak years. Actually, what Clippers did for example was to put Gobert away from action as much as possible. There were moments when it didn't work, so they attacked them in space but it's completely different situation than hunting Jokic for obvious reasons.

The bottom line reality is that advanced metrics like RPM and RAPTOR tell us that Jokic is a solidly positive defensive player. And RPM also tells us that Garnett was merely a solidly positive offensive player. There’s of course room to disagree with that (based on eye test or looking at more raw data or whatever), but I don’t think an argument that’s supported by the most advanced data we have is “insane.”

So your whole argument is that RPM shows them in similar light? That's it?

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

Agree with thr first two points, disagree with the last one. Contesting many shots at mediocre or poor level isn't a good thing. It means teams are not scared to attack you and you don't do your job in this situation.

Jokic is a great rebounder and indeed had amazing hands that made him disruptive (limited by his motor and athleticism, but that's later). He's also very solid post defender because of his size and his quick hands. I think he could also read the game reasonably well, so he doesn't make horrible breakdowns often. Overall, I agree that makes him slight positive on defense and in right situations against certain matchups that could even turn him into very strong pressence.

At the same time, he's a weak P&R defender in any coverage outside of traps. His weak rim protection ability makes him ineffective in drop coverages. Of course he's too slow to switch and hedges usually don't work tok well with him as well. Traps can work on a team level, but it limits the way you can play your defense by a lot. Secondly, as I mentioned, he's a weak rim protector. It's not only about blocks, Jokic doesn't really move the needle in terms of opponents DFG% in the paint against him. He's also a weak man defender outside the post - again, due to his lack of quickness.

Jokic is a player with clear positives but also very glaring limitations on defensive end. These limitations are way more concerning that the fact that Garnett couldn't be the best scorer in the league.

[70sFan]

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

Not really. I stand by my take of being more impressed with Jokic. His work scoring the ball was wonderful against GSW, and something that translates in a vacuum. I think GSW, were a unique poor matchup for Jokic, and Denver still not having the best defensive infrastructure made him look as badly as possible.

I think the 03 and 04 losses, just made me feel that on offense, KG was a swiss-army, Jack of all trades, master of none (except passing); that passing he can't consistently leverage on offense, due to his not great first step and ability to drive to the rim. I leave those series more questioning, KG's true optimized role on offense, and how valuable that even is in this case.

I mean, Garnett played against the Lakers without his PG in 2004 and the still made the series competitive. Way more competitive than Jokic against thr Warriors. If you think that the Wolves didn't maximize Garnett's ability by playing him PG in big stretches then I agree, but they were forced to do that and I think considering the context, Garnett did rather well.

[70sFan]

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

Not really. I stand by my take of being more impressed with Jokic. His work scoring the ball was wonderful against GSW, and something that translates in a vacuum. I think GSW, were a unique poor matchup for Jokic, and Denver still not having the best defensive infrastructure made him look as badly as possible.

I think the 03 and 04 losses, just made me feel that on offense, KG was a swiss-army, Jack of all trades, master of none (except passing); that passing he can't consistently leverage on offense, due to his not great first step and ability to drive to the rim. I leave those series more questioning, KG's true optimized role on offense, and how valuable that even is in this case.

Against the Lakers in 03 and 04, Minny scored on an ORTG of 105 in both series. This against a team that allowed 105 and 101 in the RS. The second highest scorers in each of those series? Troy Hudson at 24 ppg and Spreewell at 21 ppg.

Against the Warriors in 22, Nuggets scored on an ORTG of 115. This against a team that was first in the league, allowing 107 in the RS. The bare-boned Nuggets performed better against the Warriors defense than any team that the Warriors faced in their title run. The second highest scorer on the Nuggets in that series? Monte Morris at 14 ppg.

However better KG is on defense just doesn't make up the chasm between the two on offense.

Now look at DRTG as well...

[Ryoga Hibiki]

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

The TWolves that got swept by the Mavs (and most talking heads were taking the TWolves, before it happened) was definitely not a "sub20w team".
The versions after 2004 sure, but it's not like they achieved anything with Garnett either.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

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

Not really. I stand by my take of being more impressed with Jokic. His work scoring the ball was wonderful against GSW, and something that translates in a vacuum. I think GSW, were a unique poor matchup for Jokic, and Denver still not having the best defensive infrastructure made him look as badly as possible.

I think the 03 and 04 losses, just made me feel that on offense, KG was a swiss-army, Jack of all trades, master of none (except passing); that passing he can't consistently leverage on offense, due to his not great first step and ability to drive to the rim. I leave those series more questioning, KG's true optimized role on offense, and how valuable that even is in this case.

And he was not an elite screener

[70sFan]

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

The TWolves that got swept by the Mavs (and most talking heads were taking the TWolves, before it happened) was definitely not a "sub20w team".
The versions after 2004 sure, but it's like they achieved anything with Garnett either.

Yeah, I didn't say anything about 2002 Wolves, it was probably their most talented team outside of healthy 2004 team. I don't have the time to search for the post, but it was in the recent top 100 project. 2000-07 Wolves look extremely bad without Garnett overall.

[70sFan]

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

Not really. I stand by my take of being more impressed with Jokic. His work scoring the ball was wonderful against GSW, and something that translates in a vacuum. I think GSW, were a unique poor matchup for Jokic, and Denver still not having the best defensive infrastructure made him look as badly as possible.

I think the 03 and 04 losses, just made me feel that on offense, KG was a swiss-army, Jack of all trades, master of none (except passing); that passing he can't consistently leverage on offense, due to his not great first step and ability to drive to the rim. I leave those series more questioning, KG's true optimized role on offense, and how valuable that even is in this case.

And he was not an elite screener

Wait, you think Garnett wasn't a good screen setter?

[lessthanjake]

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

RAPM studies show him to be elite offensive player, though not among the very best of the last 25 years of course.

What do you mean by RPM being more "advanced"? Do we even know the methodology and code behind it?

Do we know the methodology and code behind any impact-box composite? Maybe sort of RAPTOR, but they’re virtually all essentially black box. Heck, even RAPM stuff is black box to an extent because we typically don’t know exactly how they regressed the data or things like minutes cutoffs they used to consider players in the RAPM study, etc. Anyways, my general assumption is that impact-box composites are probably better than pure RAPM (which, I’ll note, I think is consistent with how people inside the NBA think about this), so I am inclined to put a bit more value on something like RPM than on pure RAPM. We don’t know the methodology for it, which has to give some pause, but my assumption is that the methodology for all of this stuff (i.e. impact-box stuff *and* pure RAPM) is flawed. Indeed, I’ve said many times that I assume all metrics have flaws. I have no basis to assume RPM is more methodologically flawed than pure RAPM, though, but I guess it’s *possible.*

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

That doesn't help Jokic I am afraid, because bigs also tend to be more impactful on defense, meaning Jokic looks even worse relative to his position defensively.

No, it doesn’t help Jokic, because thinking of him relative to other big men makes his defense look less good but his offense look better, and that’s a wash (unless you were thinking of his defense relative to big men and his offense relative to all positions, in which case you’d have been inherently underselling Jokic). But I’m talking about your assessment of Kevin Garnett. We should be careful not to grade Garnett on a big-man curve offensively unless we’re also doing so about his defense. I don’t know if you’re doing this so this may not be a point that matters, but wanted to caution about it since there was some language about his offense relative to other big men.

As for teams attacking Jokic, it is of course standard NBA offense to attack a big man off a pick and roll. You could say the same thing about really great defenders, like Embiid, Gobert, etc. Allowing a guard to attack a big man in space is a big part of the entire point of the game’s most basic play!

That's not the same thing though, teams didn't attack Gobert at all during his peak years. Actually, what Clippers did for example was to put Gobert away from action as much as possible. There were moments when it didn't work, so they attacked them in space but it's completely different situation than hunting Jokic for obvious reasons.

Teams have attacked Gobert plenty on the pick and roll in the playoffs. But, yes, of course they’ve not hunted Gobert as much as Jokic. Teams would be absolutely stupid not to hunt Jokic because their best hope of slowing the Nuggets offense at all is to tire Jokic out (or, better yet, get him in foul trouble). Hunting Jokic is as much a defensive strategy as it is an offensive one. Nothing similar applies to a guy like Gobert. It *does* however apply to someone like Embiid (who I also mentioned in my post you quoted), and we have absolutely seen Embiid get hunted quite a lot.

The bottom line reality is that advanced metrics like RPM and RAPTOR tell us that Jokic is a solidly positive defensive player. And RPM also tells us that Garnett was merely a solidly positive offensive player. There’s of course room to disagree with that (based on eye test or looking at more raw data or whatever), but I don’t think an argument that’s supported by the most advanced data we have is “insane.”

So your whole argument is that RPM shows them in similar light? That's it?

Well, RPM is one of the only advanced metrics we have that goes back to Garnett’s era. RAPTOR loves Jokic’s defense even more, but it doesn’t go back far enough to assess how much it likes Garnett’s offense in comparison. Of course, as you’ve already seen, my argument also involves an analysis of the value of Jokic’s defense, so I think it’s pretty obvious that the answer to your question is no.

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

Agree with thr first two points, disagree with the last one. Contesting many shots at mediocre or poor level isn't a good thing. It means teams are not scared to attack you and you don't do your job in this situation.

Definitely disagree to at least some extent. I don’t have the exact data on hand, but I think you’d find that merely contesting shots makes a significant difference in the expected FG%, and that that’s particularly true for attempts close to the rim. In other words, even a contest from a poor rim protector is quite a lot better than no contest at all. And so a guy who positions himself to contest more shots but isn’t as good at it when he does it can close the value gap a good deal as a result of simply being in a position to contest more. I get your point that contesting many shots is in theory because you’re not deterring shots, but the top of the charts of most shots contested don’t really bear that out too much IMO, since it generally includes guys like Gobert, AD, Embiid and whatnot right near the top. And I’ll note that part of Jokic contesting more shots is that he doesn’t get off the ground a ton to try to block shots, so he stays in position to contest shots after a pass or offensive rebound.

Jokic is a great rebounder and indeed had amazing hands that made him disruptive (limited by his motor and athleticism, but that's later). He's also very solid post defender because of his size and his quick hands. I think he could also read the game reasonably well, so he doesn't make horrible breakdowns often. Overall, I agree that makes him slight positive on defense and in right situations against certain matchups that could even turn him into very strong pressence.

Obviously, I agree with this, but I just want to point out the magnitude here. According to pbpstats, in the last three seasons combined, the Nuggets’ DREB% on missed FGs has been 3.7% higher with Jokic on the court. And that number has been 6.3% in the playoffs. That sort of thing has a *really* large defensive effect!

At the same time, he's a weak P&R defender in any coverage outside of traps. His weak rim protection ability makes him ineffective in drop coverages. Of course he's too slow to switch and hedges usually don't work tok well with him as well. Traps can work on a team level, but it limits the way you can play your defense by a lot. Secondly, as I mentioned, he's a weak rim protector. It's not only about blocks, Jokic doesn't really move the needle in terms of opponents DFG% in the paint against him. He's also a weak man defender outside the post - again, due to his lack of quickness.

That’s true to an extent (though I disagree on hedges not working with him). I do think you’re missing that his quick hands (and even quick feet) in the passing lanes are a significant help in pick and roll coverages, though. This is a significant help because it means he can hedge and still make it really hard to actually get the ball to the roll man while he does so.

Jokic is a player with clear positives but also very glaring limitations on defensive end. These limitations are way more concerning that the fact that Garnett couldn't be the best scorer in the league.

But I’d say Garnett not really being able to consistently drive by his man or bully his way to deep post position and therefore very often needing to just settle for a turnaround mid-range jump shot and not being able to really get the defense scrambling was a *very* glaring limitation, particularly when he didn’t have some outlier-good mid-range shot (which is what makes this perfectly acceptable for guys like Durant). Over half of prime Garnett’s shots were mid-range jump shots. Obviously the mid-range shot is even more discouraged today, but that was clearly bad and inefficient even back then. The problem was that Garnett basically couldn’t consistently produce different/better offense than that.

I’ll put it like this. I think I may rather have a center with Jokic’s rim protection than an offensive focal point with Garnett’s limitations. It’s not clear cut to me, especially if we look beyond Garnett’s very peak years.

[70sFan]

Do we know the methodology and code behind any impact-box composite? Maybe sort of RAPTOR, but they’re virtually all essentially black box.

Well, that is why I am hesitant to use any box composites as the differentiator.

Heck, even RAPM stuff is black box to an extent because we typically don’t know exactly how they regressed the data or things like minutes cutoffs they used to consider players in the RAPM study, etc.

I don't think it's the same thing. We may not know the coefficients in the regression method, but at least we know the baseline.

Anyways, my general assumption is that impact-box composites are probably better than pure RAPM (which, I’ll note, I think is consistent with how people inside the NBA think about this), so I am inclined to put a bit more value on something like RPM than on pure RAPM. We don’t know the methodology for it, which has to give some pause, but my assumption is that the methodology for all of this stuff (i.e. impact-box stuff *and* pure RAPM) is flawed. Indeed, I’ve said many times that I assume all metrics have flaws. I have no basis to assume RPM is more methodologically flawed than pure RAPM, though, but I guess it’s *possible.*

Well, the context of this discussion is defense and I have a lot of concerns regarding boxscore numbers capturing defensive impact. Even if boxscore composites do better job than pure RAPM (do we have any evidences that teams value RPM?) at capturing overall impact, I don't think it's necessary the case with defense only.

Teams have attacked Gobert plenty on the pick and roll in the playoffs.

It is a well known narrative, my take is that it's heavily exaggerated.

But, yes, of course they’ve not hunted Gobert as much as Jokic. Teams would be absolutely stupid not to hunt Jokic because their best hope of slowing the Nuggets offense at all is to tire Jokic out (or, better yet, get him in foul trouble). Hunting Jokic is as much a defensive strategy as it is an offensive one.

You are trying to tell me that's the main reason why teams attack Jokic, but that's not true. Teams attack Jokic first and foremost because it works, they score well against Jokic actions. Of course tiring Jokic is additional bonus, but there is a reason why team don't try the same strategy against Giannis or Davis for example.

Nothing similar applies to a guy like Gobert. It *does* however apply to someone like Embiid (who I also mentioned in my post you quoted), and we have absolutely seen Embiid get hunted quite a lot.

The difference is that it doesn't really work against Embiid in most cases. I know, you will bring up game 7 against the Celtics, true Embiid had a bad game (probably because of stamina issues), but for the majority of the series Embiid played, teams don't really expose his defense to the same degree. You know why? Because Embiid is also much better defender than Jokic.

Definitely disagree to at least some extent. I don’t have the exact data on hand, but I think you’d find that merely contesting shots makes a significant difference in the expected FG%, and that that’s particularly true for attempts close to the rim. In other words, even a contest from a poor rim protector is quite a lot better than no contest at all.

Well yeah, contesting badly is better than not contesting at all. The problem is that you create false alternative here - there are other reasons why some players have lower contest volume than just not contesting shots.

And so a guy who positions himself to contest more shots but isn’t as good at it when he does it can close the value gap a good deal as a result of simply being in a position to contest more. I get your point that contesting many shots is in theory because you’re not deterring shots, but the top of the charts of most shots contested don’t really bear that out too much IMO, since it generally includes guys like Gobert, AD, Embiid and whatnot right near the top.

The difference between Gober, AD, Embiid and other top rim protectors vs Jokic is that they have comparable volume numbers (with much better effectiveness)... but they also have the additional intimidation factor Jokic doesn't possess. So they contest a lot of shots despite players being intimidated by their inside pressence, which suggests high motor in the paint. Jokic's case is different, because he's not high motor defender who doesn't intimidate slashers and he's not effective at stopping them. So no, I don't agree with your hypothesis.

And I’ll note that part of Jokic contesting more shots is that he doesn’t get off the ground a ton to try to block shots, so he stays in position to contest shots after a pass or offensive rebound.

It's a matter of recovery time. I'd much rather have Davis who can contest shot at the rim, come down and quickly recover to contest another shot than Jokic who rarely really contest shots effectively at the rim (not that defended FGA don't really mean a true contest).

Obviously, I agree with this, but I just want to point out the magnitude here. According to pbpstats, in the last three seasons combined, the Nuggets’ DREB% on missed FGs has been 3.7% higher with Jokic on the court. And that number has been 6.3% in the playoffs. That sort of thing has a *really* large defensive effect!

I agree, defensive rebounding is the biggest catalyst of Jokic's positive impact on defense. He's nothing short of incredible rebounder.

That’s true to an extent (though I disagree on hedges not working with him). I do think you’re missing that his quick hands (and even quick feet) in the passing lanes are a significant help in pick and roll coverages, though. This is a significant help because it means he can hedge and still make it really hard to actually get the ball to the roll man while he does so.

Good point, you can try to run hedges with him to some extent.

I’ll put it like this. I think I may rather have a center with Jokic’s rim protection than an offensive focal point with Garnett’s limitations. It’s not clear cut to me, especially if we look beyond Garnett’s very peak years.

The problem with that is you can basically make this problem disappear if you have at least one additional all-star level offensive player next to Garnett, while I am not sure it's that easy to hide Jokic weakness. I mean, give Garnett Murray (or healthy Cassell in 2004) and he'd compete for titles as well.

[DCasey91]

I honestly believe Garnett should really be in the same ballpark as Dirk for obviously different reasons.

2 quick things I hold now is:

For offence monopolising the ball on your main 2 is ultra important, too much overlap equals diminishing returns, you can stack offence with better fitting pieces kind of similar to how you can stack defenders especially today in 2-5 spot.

See Tatum/Brown, Leonard/George for a perfect example of diminishing returns. Too much overlap.

The second point is with defence is that more often than not on team cohesion in that you can min/max better with consistent positive defenders and length at the wings in combination with the anchor.

I don’t see Garnett as a true anchor. Not at all certainly not when comparisons to Duncan.

I see Garnett as a jack of all trades master of none so if you wanted to monopolise the ball the results will fall short to better offensive players.

For example Ewing + Miller or Garnett + Miller. I like the first combo, the balance is better. More a center orientated control inside and more spread outside.

Now to Jokic in this 3 year span his offensive results have been second to none in history. From the outside looking in he’s a straight out better version of Dirk/Bird/McHale rolled into a Marc Gasol doughy body.

I think he’s the most complete offensive player ever we have as of right now and into the future.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Not really. I stand by my take of being more impressed with Jokic. His work scoring the ball was wonderful against GSW, and something that translates in a vacuum. I think GSW, were a unique poor matchup for Jokic, and Denver still not having the best defensive infrastructure made him look as badly as possible.

I think the 03 and 04 losses, just made me feel that on offense, KG was a swiss-army, Jack of all trades, master of none (except passing); that passing he can't consistently leverage on offense, due to his not great first step and ability to drive to the rim. I leave those series more questioning, KG's true optimized role on offense, and how valuable that even is in this case.

And he was not an elite screener

Wait, you think Garnett wasn't a good screen setter?

definitely not an elite one

[LukaTheGOAT]

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

Not really. I stand by my take of being more impressed with Jokic. His work scoring the ball was wonderful against GSW, and something that translates in a vacuum. I think GSW, were a unique poor matchup for Jokic, and Denver still not having the best defensive infrastructure made him look as badly as possible.

I think the 03 and 04 losses, just made me feel that on offense, KG was a swiss-army, Jack of all trades, master of none (except passing); that passing he can't consistently leverage on offense, due to his not great first step and ability to drive to the rim. I leave those series more questioning, KG's true optimized role on offense, and how valuable that even is in this case.

I mean, Garnett played against the Lakers without his PG in 2004 and the still made the series competitive. Way more competitive than Jokic against thr Warriors. If you think that the Wolves didn't maximize Garnett's ability by playing him PG in big stretches then I agree, but they were forced to do that and I think considering the context, Garnett did rather well.

You're focused more on results, while I am more focused on their games translate across contexts. KG could play have more playmakers on his team, that wouldn't necessarily increase his impact as that takes away his passing decision-making from Garnett and in return I don't believe Garnett is seeing a huge jumper in scoring due to not being a great lob threat/finishing through contact well/. He's an all-star level guy on offense, and that is who he was.

It's cool that KG can play the PG for you in a pinch, but with more ideal team construction, he is handling the ball less. What is he doing to make up the offensive impact? In the end, him playing PG has almost so much value.

[70sFan]

Not really. I stand by my take of being more impressed with Jokic. His work scoring the ball was wonderful against GSW, and something that translates in a vacuum. I think GSW, were a unique poor matchup for Jokic, and Denver still not having the best defensive infrastructure made him look as badly as possible.

I think the 03 and 04 losses, just made me feel that on offense, KG was a swiss-army, Jack of all trades, master of none (except passing); that passing he can't consistently leverage on offense, due to his not great first step and ability to drive to the rim. I leave those series more questioning, KG's true optimized role on offense, and how valuable that even is in this case.

I mean, Garnett played against the Lakers without his PG in 2004 and the still made the series competitive. Way more competitive than Jokic against thr Warriors. If you think that the Wolves didn't maximize Garnett's ability by playing him PG in big stretches then I agree, but they were forced to do that and I think considering the context, Garnett did rather well.

You're focused more on results, while I am more focused on their games translate across contexts. KG could play have more playmakers on his team, that wouldn't necessarily increase his impact as that takes away his passing decision-making from Garnett and in return I don't believe Garnett is seeing a huge jumper in scoring due to not being a great lob threat/finishing through contact well/. He's an all-star level guy on offense, and that is who he was.

It's cool that KG can play the PG for you in a pinch, but with more ideal team construction, he is handling the ball less. What is he doing to make up the offensive impact? In the end, him playing PG has almost so much value.

That's a good point, I would counter that with the idea to pair Garnett not with playmaker, but with scorer. Basically someone like Murray would be a great teammate for KG to thrive offensively (not to the same degree as Jokic of course).

That still doesn't change the fact that you realistically can't really build elite defense around Jokic either (or at least it's very hard to do). Nuggets were good in the playoffs, but far from elite, so keep that in mind.

[lessthanjake]

The difference between Gober, AD, Embiid and other top rim protectors vs Jokic is that they have comparable volume numbers (with much better effectiveness)... but they also have the additional intimidation factor Jokic doesn't possess. So they contest a lot of shots despite players being intimidated by their inside pressence, which suggests high motor in the paint. Jokic's case is different, because he's not high motor defender who doesn't intimidate slashers and he's not effective at stopping them. So no, I don't agree with your hypothesis.

I’d agree with this, but I’m not actually suggesting that Jokic’s defense is at the level of those players, nor does it have to be at that level at all in order to be fairly comparable to Garnett’s offense (note: I’m cutting out some of the other discussion in your post since it seemed aimed at a similar point about comparisons of Jokic’s defense to guys like this). Those are a few of the very top defensive players in the NBA. I don’t think Garnett was at all an offense-equivalent to that. And I’ll note that when we talk about contesting shots at the rim, the guys who aren’t completely top guys mostly either contest a lot fewer shots or, like Jokic, contest a lot but at lower effectiveness.

Obviously, I agree with this, but I just want to point out the magnitude here. According to pbpstats, in the last three seasons combined, the Nuggets’ DREB% on missed FGs has been 3.7% higher with Jokic on the court. And that number has been 6.3% in the playoffs. That sort of thing has a *really* large defensive effect!

I agree, defensive rebounding is the biggest catalyst of Jokic's positive impact on defense. He's nothing short of incredible rebounder.

Okay, so to what extent do you think that that outweighs Jokic’s limitations in terms of rim protection effectiveness? The actual effect on defensive rating of the type of rebounding difference I mentioned above is *very* significant. It’s not some minor thing. I think you recognize that, since you’re talking about him having a positive impact on defense overall, but I just think it’s important to emphasize. I’ve not done the rough math on this, but just intuitively thinking about it, I’d generally think that the effect of Jokic’s rebounding on defensive rating is probably pretty similar to the effect of a pretty elite rim protector (though not a GOAT-like one).

I’ll put it like this. I think I may rather have a center with Jokic’s rim protection than an offensive focal point with Garnett’s limitations. It’s not clear cut to me, especially if we look beyond Garnett’s very peak years.

The problem with that is you can basically make this problem disappear if you have at least one additional all-star level offensive player next to Garnett, while I am not sure it's that easy to hide Jokic weakness. I mean, give Garnett Murray (or healthy Cassell in 2004) and he'd compete for titles as well.

That’s a perfectly fair point. But even that I’m pretty skeptical of, when it comes to Garnett’s offensive value actually clearly overcoming Jokic’s defensive value. If Garnett is not the offensive focal point, that’s probably good for the team as a whole since he’s got some serious offensive limitations. But it does also still limit his offensive value a good bit, since it prevents him from leveraging his passing to the same degree. So if he’s not the offensive focal point, you’re getting less value-added from him offensively. For reference on this, I mentioned Garnett’s ORPM values, but it was a lot lower with Boston (where he was alongside all-star level offensive players and therefore not the offensive focal point). His ORPM values in Boston were (in chronological order): +1.40, +0.24, -0.36, -0.07, -0.16, -1.67. Granted, he was getting older in those years, so that’s of course a part of this. I don’t think Garnett in his best years would’ve been a *negative* offensive player on a team where he wasn’t the offensive focal point. But I don’t think it’s a ringing endorsement of the idea that Garnett’s offensive value would be very high as a secondary option. Is Garnett’s offensive value as a secondary option greater than Jokic’s defensive value? Again, I’m not entirely certain that the answer is yes, or at least if it is yes, then I’m not sure it’s by a substantial margin.

[homecourtloss]

Do we know the methodology and code behind any impact-box composite? Maybe sort of RAPTOR, but they’re virtually all essentially black box.

Well, that is why I am hesitant to use any box composites as the differentiator.

Heck, even RAPM stuff is black box to an extent because we typically don’t know exactly how they regressed the data or things like minutes cutoffs they used to consider players in the RAPM study, etc.

I don't think it's the same thing. We may not know the coefficients in the regression method, but at least we know the baseline.

Anyways, my general assumption is that impact-box composites are probably better than pure RAPM (which, I’ll note, I think is consistent with how people inside the NBA think about this), so I am inclined to put a bit more value on something like RPM than on pure RAPM. We don’t know the methodology for it, which has to give some pause, but my assumption is that the methodology for all of this stuff (i.e. impact-box stuff *and* pure RAPM) is flawed. Indeed, I’ve said many times that I assume all metrics have flaws. I have no basis to assume RPM is more methodologically flawed than pure RAPM, though, but I guess it’s *possible.*

Well, the context of this discussion is defense and I have a lot of concerns regarding boxscore numbers capturing defensive impact. Even if boxscore composites do better job than pure RAPM (do we have any evidences that teams value RPM?) at capturing overall impact, I don't think it's necessary the case with defense only.

Teams have attacked Gobert plenty on the pick and roll in the playoffs.

It is a well known narrative, my take is that it's heavily exaggerated.

But, yes, of course they’ve not hunted Gobert as much as Jokic. Teams would be absolutely stupid not to hunt Jokic because their best hope of slowing the Nuggets offense at all is to tire Jokic out (or, better yet, get him in foul trouble). Hunting Jokic is as much a defensive strategy as it is an offensive one.

You are trying to tell me that's the main reason why teams attack Jokic, but that's not true. Teams attack Jokic first and foremost because it works, they score well against Jokic actions. Of course tiring Jokic is additional bonus, but there is a reason why team don't try the same strategy against Giannis or Davis for example.

Nothing similar applies to a guy like Gobert. It *does* however apply to someone like Embiid (who I also mentioned in my post you quoted), and we have absolutely seen Embiid get hunted quite a lot.

The difference is that it doesn't really work against Embiid in most cases. I know, you will bring up game 7 against the Celtics, true Embiid had a bad game (probably because of stamina issues), but for the majority of the series Embiid played, teams don't really expose his defense to the same degree. You know why? Because Embiid is also much better defender than Jokic.

Definitely disagree to at least some extent. I don’t have the exact data on hand, but I think you’d find that merely contesting shots makes a significant difference in the expected FG%, and that that’s particularly true for attempts close to the rim. In other words, even a contest from a poor rim protector is quite a lot better than no contest at all.

Well yeah, contesting badly is better than not contesting at all. The problem is that you create false alternative here - there are other reasons why some players have lower contest volume than just not contesting shots.

And so a guy who positions himself to contest more shots but isn’t as good at it when he does it can close the value gap a good deal as a result of simply being in a position to contest more. I get your point that contesting many shots is in theory because you’re not deterring shots, but the top of the charts of most shots contested don’t really bear that out too much IMO, since it generally includes guys like Gobert, AD, Embiid and whatnot right near the top.

The difference between Gober, AD, Embiid and other top rim protectors vs Jokic is that they have comparable volume numbers (with much better effectiveness)... but they also have the additional intimidation factor Jokic doesn't possess. So they contest a lot of shots despite players being intimidated by their inside pressence, which suggests high motor in the paint. Jokic's case is different, because he's not high motor defender who doesn't intimidate slashers and he's not effective at stopping them. So no, I don't agree with your hypothesis.

And I’ll note that part of Jokic contesting more shots is that he doesn’t get off the ground a ton to try to block shots, so he stays in position to contest shots after a pass or offensive rebound.

It's a matter of recovery time. I'd much rather have Davis who can contest shot at the rim, come down and quickly recover to contest another shot than Jokic who rarely really contest shots effectively at the rim (not that defended FGA don't really mean a true contest).

Obviously, I agree with this, but I just want to point out the magnitude here. According to pbpstats, in the last three seasons combined, the Nuggets’ DREB% on missed FGs has been 3.7% higher with Jokic on the court. And that number has been 6.3% in the playoffs. That sort of thing has a *really* large defensive effect!

I agree, defensive rebounding is the biggest catalyst of Jokic's positive impact on defense. He's nothing short of incredible rebounder.

That’s true to an extent (though I disagree on hedges not working with him). I do think you’re missing that his quick hands (and even quick feet) in the passing lanes are a significant help in pick and roll coverages, though. This is a significant help because it means he can hedge and still make it really hard to actually get the ball to the roll man while he does so.

Good point, you can try to run hedges with him to some extent.

I’ll put it like this. I think I may rather have a center with Jokic’s rim protection than an offensive focal point with Garnett’s limitations. It’s not clear cut to me, especially if we look beyond Garnett’s very peak years.

The problem with that is you can basically make this problem disappear if you have at least one additional all-star level offensive player next to Garnett, while I am not sure it's that easy to hide Jokic weakness. I mean, give Garnett Murray (or healthy Cassell in 2004) and he'd compete for titles as well.

Jokic’s defensive ON/OFF DRAPTOR doesn’t look good, whereas the box defensive RAPTOR does. He’s an elite defensive rebounder but as such, you’d think that being so would translate to the plus/minus numbers we have but generally doesn’t. Also, whatever other box aspects RAPTOR likes about Jokic’s defense doesn’t seem to translate to plus/minus numbers.


Look at the 2022 playoffs — his box DRAPTOR is +8.5 while his on/off DRAPTOR is -2.0. When you look at his boxscore, 2022 saw his highest DREB%, highest steal%, highest BLK%.



It’s great that he was rebounding strongly, blocking shots, getting steals, but it didn’t translate into plus/minus results in 2022 but then again, we only have 171 minutes so it’s noisy. But on the other hand, most of his playoffs DRAPTOR defensive on/off numbers also don’t look good outside of one season.

His regular season DRAPTOR on/off numbers look better.

JE has his career RS+PS DRAPM at a -1 (a negative being good in this case), which wouldn’t change much if we added 2023, especially since he weights the PS.

[lessthanjake]

Jokic’s defensive ON/OFF DRAPTOR doesn’t look good, whereas the box defensive RAPTOR does. He’s an elite defensive rebounder but as such, you’d think that being so would translate to the plus/minus numbers we have but generally doesn’t. Also, whatever other box aspects RAPTOR likes about Jokic’s defense doesn’t seem to translate to plus/minus numbers.

I don’t understand this desire to use a *component* of RAPTOR as if it’s an independent stat. It’s not. There’s very good reason that that’s just a component of the stat, and it’s literally because the overall stat is substantially more accurate. So this is just you saying “Yeah, a stat says Jokic’s defense is great, but one subpart of that stat that is obviously less accurate than the overall stat doesn’t think Jokic’s defense is good.” Not exactly a persuasive point. You should also note that the “box” portion of RAPTOR uses tracking data—it’s not just taking numbers from the box score.