Jokić vs Hakeem

[atlantabbq99]

Jokic with 1 ring and Hakeem with 2 rings

Both guys are very different players but their careers arches are very similar.

Which guy makes your top 10 of all time?

[70sFan]

Jokic so far isn't close to Hakeem in terms of career value.

[picko]

The gap offensively is significant (in favour of Jokic) and the gap defensively is significant (in favour of Hakeem).

Regular season comparison (aged 22 to 29 seasons):
Olajuwon (594 games): 23.7 PER ~ 83.4 WS ~ 0.184 WS/48 ~ 4.8 BPM
Jokic (587 games): 29.3 PER ~ 110.6 WS ~ 0.270 WS/48 ~ 11.1 BPM

Playoff comparison (aged 22 to 29 seasons):
Olajuwon (50 games): 26.0 PER ~ 9.1 WS ~ 0.223 WS/48 ~ 7.2 BPM
Jokic (80 games): 29.2 PER ~ 15.2 WS ~ 0.241 WS/48 ~ 10.8 BPM

The gap in advanced metrics - which admittedly greatly favours offensive - is quite simply massive. They are completely different tiers of offensive player. Defensive value is difficult to measure, and would surely favour Hakeem, but you'd need to put a very large weight on defensive to argue that Hakeem has been better at this point in their respective careers.

Career wise you can argue in favour of Hakeem (1238 games vs 740), but there is very little chance when Jokic's career is over that he'll sit below Hakeem on most fan's 'best player' lists, short of catastrophic injury. Jokic's peak is simply too high and he's currently on a five-year run as the best player in the league (and there just isn't many guys you can say that about).

[70sFan]

you'd need to put a very large weight on defensive to argue that Hakeem has been better at this point in their respective careers.

The real question is why shouldn't we?

[penbeast0]

The gap offensively is significant (in favour of Jokic) and the gap defensively is significant (in favour of Hakeem).

Regular season comparison (aged 22 to 29 seasons):
Olajuwon (594 games): 23.7 PER ~ 83.4 WS ~ 0.184 WS/48 ~ 4.8 BPM
Jokic (587 games): 29.3 PER ~ 110.6 WS ~ 0.270 WS/48 ~ 11.1 BPM

Playoff comparison (aged 22 to 29 seasons):
Olajuwon (50 games): 26.0 PER ~ 9.1 WS ~ 0.223 WS/48 ~ 7.2 BPM
Jokic (80 games): 29.2 PER ~ 15.2 WS ~ 0.241 WS/48 ~ 10.8 BPM

The gap in advanced metrics - which admittedly greatly favours offensive - is quite simply massive. They are completely different tiers of offensive player. Defensive value is difficult to measure, and would surely favour Hakeem, but you'd need to put a very large weight on defensive to argue that Hakeem has been better at this point in their respective careers.

Career wise you can argue in favour of Hakeem (1238 games vs 740), but there is very little chance when Jokic's career is over that he'll sit below Hakeem on most fan's 'best player' lists, short of catastrophic injury. Jokic's peak is simply too high and he's currently on a five-year run as the best player in the league (and there just isn't many guys you can say that about).

But if you've studied the NBA over any significant length of time, you will see that most centers going all the way back to Wilt and Mikan, have a greater effect defensively than offensively. Teams spend 50% of their time on each end and the center position is not always the key position offensively but it almost always has been the key position defensively for most teams. Even today, centers (defined as the primary rim protection big man) have a great effect on defense than any of the other 5 positions despite the modern move toward "positionless basketball" and spamming 3s. So, it's not surprising that great defense by a center should get valued even more than great offense by a center when discussing career impact.

That's why Bill Russell is the GOAT impact player despite his limited offensive skills.

[migya]

Olajuwon was a great offensive player and was among the best scorers in a stacked era. He carried teams, much like Jokic, but did so on bothe ends and it all generated from him, including the open threes.

[eminence]

Hakeem is currently in my top 10 (in a 7-10 tier with Wilt/Magic/Shaq) while Jokic is not. Probably closer to #20, though I haven't officially gone through and graded last/this season.

Jokic is on a good enough path to potentially join/maybe pass Hakeem in the future. Nothing's a given though, I thought Giannis was on his way after '21 and now that seems unlikely.

Box favors Jokic, but the (noisy) impact measures we have for both have it closer in prime.

I prefer Hakeems playoff translation, though it can be overstated.

Longevity edge is clear to Hakeem currently and the main reason for the gap in ranking. Prime I could see arguing either way though I think I slightly prefer Hakeem (Jokic is in prime and has a chance to change that assessment).

[bigboi]

Hakeem lol. Jokic doesn’t play defense. I will never rate Jokic as high as some of you for this very reason. Center Harden

[parsnips33]

The gap offensively is significant (in favour of Jokic) and the gap defensively is significant (in favour of Hakeem).

Regular season comparison (aged 22 to 29 seasons):
Olajuwon (594 games): 23.7 PER ~ 83.4 WS ~ 0.184 WS/48 ~ 4.8 BPM
Jokic (587 games): 29.3 PER ~ 110.6 WS ~ 0.270 WS/48 ~ 11.1 BPM

Playoff comparison (aged 22 to 29 seasons):
Olajuwon (50 games): 26.0 PER ~ 9.1 WS ~ 0.223 WS/48 ~ 7.2 BPM
Jokic (80 games): 29.2 PER ~ 15.2 WS ~ 0.241 WS/48 ~ 10.8 BPM

The gap in advanced metrics - which admittedly greatly favours offensive - is quite simply massive. They are completely different tiers of offensive player. Defensive value is difficult to measure, and would surely favour Hakeem, but you'd need to put a very large weight on defensive to argue that Hakeem has been better at this point in their respective careers.

Career wise you can argue in favour of Hakeem (1238 games vs 740), but there is very little chance when Jokic's career is over that he'll sit below Hakeem on most fan's 'best player' lists, short of catastrophic injury. Jokic's peak is simply too high and he's currently on a five-year run as the best player in the league (and there just isn't many guys you can say that about).

But if you've studied the NBA over any significant length of time, you will see that most centers going all the way back to Wilt and Mikan, have a greater effect defensively than offensively. Teams spend 50% of their time on each end and the center position is not always the key position offensively but it almost always has been the key position defensively for most teams. Even today, centers (defined as the primary rim protection big man) have a great effect on defense than any of the other 5 positions despite the modern move toward "positionless basketball" and spamming 3s. So, it's not surprising that great defense by a center should get valued even more than great offense by a center when discussing career impact.

That's why Bill Russell is the GOAT impact player despite his limited offensive skills.

Sure this is generally true, but aren't both of these guys extremely central to their team's offenses? Why does it matter if their impact doesn't map cleanly to the average center?

[atlantabbq99]

The gap offensively is significant (in favour of Jokic) and the gap defensively is significant (in favour of Hakeem).

Regular season comparison (aged 22 to 29 seasons):
Olajuwon (594 games): 23.7 PER ~ 83.4 WS ~ 0.184 WS/48 ~ 4.8 BPM
Jokic (587 games): 29.3 PER ~ 110.6 WS ~ 0.270 WS/48 ~ 11.1 BPM

Playoff comparison (aged 22 to 29 seasons):
Olajuwon (50 games): 26.0 PER ~ 9.1 WS ~ 0.223 WS/48 ~ 7.2 BPM
Jokic (80 games): 29.2 PER ~ 15.2 WS ~ 0.241 WS/48 ~ 10.8 BPM

The gap in advanced metrics - which admittedly greatly favours offensive - is quite simply massive. They are completely different tiers of offensive player. Defensive value is difficult to measure, and would surely favour Hakeem, but you'd need to put a very large weight on defensive to argue that Hakeem has been better at this point in their respective careers.

Career wise you can argue in favour of Hakeem (1238 games vs 740), but there is very little chance when Jokic's career is over that he'll sit below Hakeem on most fan's 'best player' lists, short of catastrophic injury. Jokic's peak is simply too high and he's currently on a five-year run as the best player in the league (and there just isn't many guys you can say that about).

To play devils advocate... Hakeem played in the golden age of centers (Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Mutombo, Mourning, young Ducan)

Jokic on the other hand is playing in the weakest era of centers in NBA history.

[kcktiny]

Olajuwon was a great offensive player and was among the best scorers in a stacked era.

From 1985-86 to 1995-96 (11 straight seasons) Olajuwon:

- scored more points than any C in the league (20148, 24.6 pts/g)
- grabbed the most offensive rebounds of any C in the league (2912, 3.6 oreb/g)
- attempted the most FTs of any C in the league (5746, 7.0 FTA/g)
- played the most minutes among Cs, averaged per season 74-75 g and 2824 min

Jokic has never played more than 2737 minutes in a season, Olajuwon has 10 seasons playing more minutes than that, including 4 seasons of 3000+ minutes played. In each player's first decade in the league Jokic played just 32 min/g, Olajuwon 37 min/g.

Hakeem lol. Jokic doesn’t play defense. I will never rate Jokic as high as some of you for this very reason.

Absolutely true. Olajuwon is one of the greatest defenders in league history. Jokic has been a worse than average to poor defender for a C his entire career.

The gap in advanced metrics - which admittedly greatly favours offensive - is quite simply massive.

Depends on what metrics you look at. When you only look at those metrics that favor Jokic then yes you would come to this erroneous conclusion.

It's hard to be good on offense when you are sitting on the bench, and Olajuwon has played far more minutes than Jokic has, even in a similar age range. It's not even close.

Even looking at just the age range Jokic has been in the league (ages 21-29), in that age range:

- offensive rebounds Olajuwon 2775, Jokic 1788
- FTAs Olajuwon 4670, Jokic 3311. Jokic rarely got his opponent into foul trouble, Olajuwon routinely did
- similar per game scoring, Jokic the better passer by a lot

Defensive value is difficult to measure

Not at all. It's just that Jokic fanboys absolutely refuse to acknowledge his great deficiency here.

Stats.nba.com shows individual player shot defense since 2013-14, covering all of Jokic's career. Right now - today - it shows for 2024-25 from <10' of the basket Jokic allowing a 60.3% FG% (392/650). Among the 40 Cs in the league that have faced 300+ FGAs from <10', that's the 7th highest/worst allowed, in a range of best/lowest of 47.0% and the worst/highest 64.0%.

You can see his routinely similar poor shot defense for a C in earlier seasons.

Olajuwon was named all-defensive team 9 times, 5 times all-defensive 1st team.

And no "advanced" defensive metric includes individual player shot defense in it's calculation - the one thing Jokic is quite poor at for a C.

but you'd need to put a very large weight on defensive to argue that Hakeem has been better at this point in their respective careers.

If you were comparing Jokic on offense shooting 60% on 2s to another C shooting just 47% you as a Jokic fanboy would be all over this.

But you refuse to acknowledge his annual poor shot defense, as if it simply doesn't matter.

there is very little chance when Jokic's career is over that he'll sit below Hakeem on most fan's 'best player' lists

Most Jokic fans have no clue on how to evaluate defense, and refuse to acknowledge his poor shot defense for a C.

Jokic has been the starting C on Denver since 2015-16. Since then Denver on defense as a team has allowed the 9th highest/worst 2pt FG% at 53.0%, and as a team ranks just 22nd (9th worst) in defensive efficiency at 111.3 pts/100poss allowed. He alone played 1/8 of the team's total minutes played over all that time, and 6671 more minutes than any other Nuggets player. He is the key reason why that team has been poor on defense for so long.

Olajuwon's first decade in the league (1984-85 to 1993-94) Houston ranked 2nd in the league in defensive efficiency at 104.0 pts/100poss allowed, and allowed the 2nd lowest 2pt FG% at 47.7%. Olajuwon alone played 1/7 of that team's total minutes played over all that time, 10888 more minutes than any other Rockets player, and he was the key reason they were so good defensively.

[penbeast0]

To play devils advocate... Hakeem played in the golden age of centers (Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Mutombo, Mourning, young Ducan)

Jokic on the other hand is playing in the weakest era of centers in NBA history.

I don't think this is the weakest era ever; just the era of centers (and others) who miss huge chunks of time makes it seem much weaker without Embiid, Anthony Davis, etc. who always seem to be injured. The modern fragility of players just shows up a lot more because the crop of NBA talented guys big enough to play center has always been much smaller than the crop of wing sized or guard sized talent.

People talk about how weak Shaq's competition at center was after the David Robinson injury, Moses was the best center in the NBA for a few years, there was even a period where Amare Stoudamire was the All-NBA 1st or 2nd team center 5 times between 2005 and 2011.

(If Tim Duncan is considered a center, the late 2005-2010 era becomes far stronger but he was generally being voted on as a PF.)

[lessthanjake]

Prime Jokic is a better and more impactful basketball player than Hakeem, but it’s not clear that Jokic has passed Hakeem yet in terms of an all-time list. However, Jokic has only just turned 30, so that’s very far from set in stone.

[70sFan]

Prime Jokic is a better and more impactful basketball player than Hakeem,

That's far from clear.

but it’s not clear that Jokic has passed Hakeem yet in terms of an all-time list.

I actually think it's quite clear that he didn't, at least not based on career value.

[lessthanjake]

Prime Jokic is a better and more impactful basketball player than Hakeem,

That's far from clear.

To me, it is. I’ve watched both a lot, and I know who I think is better. I also am not particularly impressed by the limited impact data we have for Hakeem. Because of this sort of stuff, the argument for Hakeem over other guys is typically that he was an individual playoff riser. It’s often a fairly persuasive argument. But Jokic is an incredible playoff performer too, so that’s not persuasive to me at all in the context of this particular comparison.

but it’s not clear that Jokic has passed Hakeem yet in terms of an all-time list.

I actually think it's quite clear that he didn't, at least not based on career value.

But this just amounts to saying “It is clear Hakeem is ahead if you take a specific approach that is inherently geared against a still-active 30-year-old player.” That’s all well and good, but it’s not the only approach, and obviously other approaches will be more favorable to a still-active 30-year-old player than a pure “career value” approach.

[Peregrine01]

I don’t think Jokic is near Hakeem as far as career goes but it’s interesting how fast he’s moving up the rankings. Most around these parts have him in the top 20…and this not even 3 years removed from him not even being included in the official top 75 list.

[Special_Puppy]

Seeing as how Hakeem is 6th on the PC Board’s top 100, my guess is that this board will prefer Hakeem to Jokic

[70sFan]

To me, it is. I’ve watched both a lot, and I know who I think is better. I also am not particularly impressed by the limited impact data we have for Hakeem. Because of this sort of stuff, the argument for Hakeem over other guys is typically that he was an individual playoff riser. It’s often a fairly persuasive argument. But Jokic is an incredible playoff performer too, so that’s not persuasive to me at all in the context of this particular comparison.

You think it is, but the majority of people disagree with you, so I don't think it's really clear. Jokic is easier to put ahead for obvious reasons - he's significantly better offensive player and 95% of available stats measure offensive production, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore the fact that Hakeem was one of the best and most versatile defenders ever who translated perfectly to postseason play on both ends on the floor, while Jokic has a very clear, exploitable weakness.

But this just amounts to saying “It is clear Hakeem is ahead if you take a specific approach that is inherently geared against a still-active 30-year-old player.” That’s all well and good, but it’s not the only approach, and obviously other approaches will be more favorable to a still-active 30-year-old player than a pure “career value” approach.

Yeah, I personally rank players based on what they actually did in their careers. We've seen talks about Giannis surpassing Hakeem a few years ago, now it doesn't seem very likely.

[lessthanjake]

To me, it is. I’ve watched both a lot, and I know who I think is better. I also am not particularly impressed by the limited impact data we have for Hakeem. Because of this sort of stuff, the argument for Hakeem over other guys is typically that he was an individual playoff riser. It’s often a fairly persuasive argument. But Jokic is an incredible playoff performer too, so that’s not persuasive to me at all in the context of this particular comparison.

You think it is, but the majority of people disagree with you, so I don't think it's really clear. Jokic is easier to put ahead for obvious reasons - he's significantly better offensive player and 95% of available stats measure offensive production, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore the fact that Hakeem was one of the best and most versatile defenders ever who translated perfectly to postseason play on both ends on the floor, while Jokic has a very clear, exploitable weakness.

I think it’s safe to say that the majority of people *on the PC Board* disagree with me on this (after all, the PC Board put Hakeem #6 all time). But I would not be at all sure that the majority of basketball fans more generally do.

But this just amounts to saying “It is clear Hakeem is ahead if you take a specific approach that is inherently geared against a still-active 30-year-old player.” That’s all well and good, but it’s not the only approach, and obviously other approaches will be more favorable to a still-active 30-year-old player than a pure “career value” approach.

Yeah, I personally rank players based on what they actually did in their careers. We've seen talks about Giannis surpassing Hakeem a few years ago, now it doesn't seem very likely.

I certainly agree that we should rank based on what’s happened and not a hypothetical. But, even assuming we do that, ranking players based purely on career value is only one approach. For instance, a whole lot of people put a very significant weight on an assessment of who was better in their prime. That sort of assessment would be more favorable to a still-playing 30-year-old player than a pure career-value approach would be. Of course, you might come down on Hakeem’s side either way, but I think people who think Jokic in his prime is substantially better than Hakeem in his prime definitely could rank Jokic ahead all time even if they thought Hakeem had more “career value” by having played longer than Jokic (so far).

[One_and_Done]

I'll take Hakeem. Jokic has gotten a little overrated tbh.