Jokic v. Bird

[SNPA]

Pretty one-sided so far. I’d like to hear arguments from the Bird supporters in the KG vs. Bird thread.

.

.

Bird.

.

.

This is a funny thread to me. It’s a choice between PF version Bird in the 80s or Center version of Bird in the modern era. Either way, good choice.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Jokic for prime and peak. Bird probably for career due to career length.

There’s a level of comfort and control that Jokic brings simply by being a presence in the paint. His unique efficiency with floaters and short-to-mid-range shots allows him to counter nearly any defensive scheme with remarkable consistency. He dictates the kind of looks he gets more effectively than Bird. He’s less likely to be pushed off his spots or denied access to the rim.

Bird might have more flair and eye-catching moments, but that doesn’t always translate into consistent production. I’ve always had a natural aversion to relying heavily on long, contested two-point jumpers. I think there's a cap on how effective those can be as a primary scoring method. Also, Bird’s ability to get to the free-throw line feels less reliable than Jokic’s, which affects scoring consistency. Free throws are a valuable source of points—they’re free, after all.

Another thing I’ve noticed: I’ve never been fully sold on Bird’s finishing at the rim. I don’t have exact numbers here, so I’m leaning on the eye test, but it always seemed like his lack of verticality and size limited his ability to finish effectively in traffic.

Bird may have the edge defensively, especially in terms of positioning and instincts, but I don’t think it’s enough to close the overall gap. Jokic’s interior gravity forces frequent double-teams, which opens up passing lanes and scoring opportunities for his teammates. While both are elite passers, Jokic creates more consistent "must-rotate" situations for defenses—especially in today’s spacing-heavy era.

It’s also just a hunch, but even if you combined Bird’s early-career defense with his peak offensive years (which I don’t think overlapped), I’d still lean toward Jokic in terms of overall impact and impressiveness.

This is more of a feelings-based analysis, admittedly. Your evaluation may weigh these traits differently, depending on how boom-or-bust you see each component. But for me, Jokic’s skill set aligns more closely with what I value in all-time great production.

[Warspite]

Bird: Career(so far) and peak
Jokic: prime (so far)

I have always viewed Cs as having much more value than any other spot. I would most likely rather have a top 15 C than have a top 5 wing player. For the same reason Bowie, Oden and Ayton were drafted before Jordan, Durant and Luka. If your league isnt willing to change the rules for marketing purposes then the C will have intrinsic value that makes it easier to build a winner.

My only knock on Jokic is not his fault whatsoever. He has no peers and plays in a very weak era. If he put up the same stats in the same era as Bird he would have a GOAT argument. However many posters here(who were never alive in the 20th century) would say he played against plumbers and taxi drivers and would never be able to make an NBA team today.

I just wish he had a Shaq/Hakeem/Ewing/Deke/Zo peer group that I could compare and contrast. Any big that plays today gets the same skepticism that wing players from 50s and 60s get.

[tsherkin]

He has no peers and plays in a very weak era.

By what measure? Team depth is better than its been in decades.

I just wish he had a Shaq/Hakeem/Ewing/Deke/Zo peer group that I could compare and contrast. Any big that plays today gets the same skepticism that wing players from 50s and 60s get.

Which is an odd approach, because obviously the depth is very different compared the reasons why the 50s and 60s present issues.

Jokic is a monster. He'd be dominant in any era. Perhaps more so in earlier eras, even if the specific efficiency numbers would change without the small boost he gets from his 3pt shooting. The main issue he has is that his teams haven't had the peripheral talent prerequisite to repeat contention. You don't author a dynasty without sufficient talent surrounding you, it's that simple.

[migya]

He has no peers and plays in a very weak era.

By what measure? Team depth is better than its been in decades.

I just wish he had a Shaq/Hakeem/Ewing/Deke/Zo peer group that I could compare and contrast. Any big that plays today gets the same skepticism that wing players from 50s and 60s get.

Which is an odd approach, because obviously the depth is very different compared the reasons why the 50s and 60s present issues.

Jokic is a monster. He'd be dominant in any era. Perhaps more so in earlier eras, even if the specific efficiency numbers would change without the small boost he gets from his 3pt shooting. The main issue he has is that his teams haven't had the peripheral talent prerequisite to repeat contention. You don't author a dynasty without sufficient talent surrounding you, it's that simple.

It is right that in less spacing, more physical, better Centers, particularly defensively, Jokic would have a much harder time be great. He still would be but not like what he is.

[rrravenred]

Would say that Bird's probably better at offball play in a multipolar offensive environment, he had a good motor and less weight to drag around the court.

That is, of course, very team dependent. You don't necessarily WANT the ball out of Jokic's hands as he has the body and length to create whatever opportunities he wants whereas Bird has relatively fewer tools and narrower margins.

Does raise interesting questions about how Bird would operate in the mismatch-happy environment of today, though.

[tsherkin]

It is right that in less spacing, more physical, better Centers, particularly defensively, Jokic would have a much harder time be great. He still would be but not like what he is.

I doubt he would "have a hard time being great." He might have a little bit harder a time standing out depending on team construction and whether he was in the East or the West. Easier in the East, to be sure, especially early on in the 90s before Shaq got there.

His skill set is dramatically superior as a scoring threat compared to Ewing or Zo, for example. His specific percentages would surely be a little different, of course, it's likely that he wouldn't have 3 MVPs in the 90s. but he'd end up great regardless.

[Warspite]

It is right that in less spacing, more physical, better Centers, particularly defensively, Jokic would have a much harder time be great. He still would be but not like what he is.

I doubt he would "have a hard time being great." He might have a little bit harder a time standing out depending on team construction and whether he was in the East or the West. Easier in the East, to be sure, especially early on in the 90s before Shaq got there.

His skill set is dramatically superior as a scoring threat compared to Ewing or Zo, for example. His specific percentages would surely be a little different, of course, it's likely that he wouldn't have 3 MVPs in the 90s. but he'd end up great regardless.

There is no doubt he would be great in any era. Its just how great? Is he Jeff Ruland, Bill Laimbeer, Jack Sikma or is he Mikan? I just wish I could watch him play vs other HoF big men. The simple fact is he is going to have a case for GOAT at his current pace. If he is better than Bird he most likely will be better than Hakeem/Shaq/Wilt/Russell. My eyes tell me he is not a top 5-10 player of all time, but his resume is hard to ignore.

[tsherkin]

There is no doubt he would be great in any era. Its just how great? Is he Jeff Ruland, Bill Laimbeer, Jack Sikma or is he Mikan? I just wish I could watch him play vs other HoF big men. The simple fact is he is going to have a case for GOAT at his current pace. If he is better than Bird he most likely will be better than Hakeem/Shaq/Wilt/Russell. My eyes tell me he is not a top 5-10 player of all time, but his resume is hard to ignore.

My eyes suggest that he's about as good as you're ever going to see offensively. He's definitely better than Laimbeer, that's just offensive. He's better than Sikma, though respect to Sikma because he was very good. Ruland was okay, especially for how late he started, but he had LARGE turnover issues and then he was barely present due to health.

He's incredible to watch. And honestly, you put him with a coach like Alex Hannum, Rick Adelman or John McCleod or Phil Jackson or someone who knew how to use bigs who could pass or understood spacing and you'd be looking at something special in any era.

[FrodoBaggins]

Jokic is clearly better, but Daugherty shares some similarities with Nikola from that era.

[tsherkin]

Jokic is clearly better, but Daugherty shares some similarities with Nikola from that era.

In the sense of being an efficient big man who passed better than Bill Cartwright, for sure. But there is the questioning of skill proficiency magnitude, as the difference in short finishing and in playmaking are very significant. And Jokic is also a better offensive rebounder.

[Peregrine01]

I think Jokic would be even more effective in the 90s if you transported him there today. The game has evolved a lot.

[FrodoBaggins]

Jokic is clearly better, but Daugherty shares some similarities with Nikola from that era.

In the sense of being an efficient big man who passed better than Bill Cartwright, for sure. But there is the questioning of skill proficiency magnitude, as the difference in short finishing and in playmaking are very significant. And Jokic is also a better offensive rebounder.

Big, slow, & skilled. I've seen some poor takes suggesting Jokic would struggle with the size, athleticism, and physicality of the '80s and '90s, which is obviously hogwash. If Daugherty - a clearly inferior talent - can put up 21+ ppg on top-of-the-league 57% 2PT and 63% TS, I don't think Nikola would struggle to score, and at league-leading efficiency.

I can see him scoring efficiently at volume on the inside like McHale & Daugherty, but with a floor game and perimeter shot more akin to Bird.

[tsherkin]

Big, slow, & skilled. I've seen some poor takes suggesting Jokic would struggle with the size, athleticism, and physicality of the '80s and '90s, which is obviously hogwash. If Daugherty - a clearly inferior talent - can put up 21+ ppg on top-of-the-league 57% 2PT and 63% TS, I don't think Nikola would struggle to score, and at league-leading efficiency.

I can see him scoring efficiently at volume on the inside like McHale & Daugherty, but with a floor game and perimeter shot more akin to Bird.

Yeah, that makes sense to me. Dude definitely has the size to establish his presence inside, and doesn't really need insane quickness to do it.

[Warspite]

There is no doubt he would be great in any era. Its just how great? Is he Jeff Ruland, Bill Laimbeer, Jack Sikma or is he Mikan? I just wish I could watch him play vs other HoF big men. The simple fact is he is going to have a case for GOAT at his current pace. If he is better than Bird he most likely will be better than Hakeem/Shaq/Wilt/Russell. My eyes tell me he is not a top 5-10 player of all time, but his resume is hard to ignore.

My eyes suggest that he's about as good as you're ever going to see offensively. He's definitely better than Laimbeer, that's just offensive. He's better than Sikma, though respect to Sikma because he was very good. Ruland was okay, especially for how late he started, but he had LARGE turnover issues and then he was barely present due to health.

He's incredible to watch. And honestly, you put him with a coach like Alex Hannum, Rick Adelman or John McCleod or Phil Jackson or someone who knew how to use bigs who could pass or understood spacing and you'd be looking at something special in any era.

The question is he better than Larry Bird? Would Jokic win 3 MVPs in a league with Larry Bird/Micheal Jordan/Magic Johnson/DrJ/Moses Malone/KAJ? Would he dominate those players and consistently beat their teams while playing for the Bullets/Nets/Pacers/Sonics/Mavs type teams? That is what grapple with. I have to believe that if I put Jokic on any 35-45 win team in any year from 79-99 that that team will can make the Finals. I have to believe that if Jokic is on that team that they are favorites to win the title (because I believe that about Bird).

I don't think the talent gap between Larry Bird, Magic, LBJ and MJ is that measurable. For Jokic to be clearly better than 1 he most likely is as good as/better than all.

[kcktiny]

Would Jokic win 3 MVPs in a league with Larry Bird/Micheal Jordan/Magic Johnson/DrJ/Moses Malone/KAJ?

How about the 90s? Olajuwon, Ewing, David Robinson, Mutombo, Shaq, Mourning - Jokic has never faced an all-time great two-way C like these (well not Dikembe), and they all played in this same decade.

The best defensive C he's faced is Gobert, and Gobert is not the shot blocker any of the above six were. Who's the best offensive C he's faced, Embiid? A center that plays maybe 50 games a season? And Anthony Davis has played PF/C, so it's not like he's had to guard any great offensive Cs like those in the 90s.

[Whopper_Sr]

Would Jokic win 3 MVPs in a league with Larry Bird/Micheal Jordan/Magic Johnson/DrJ/Moses Malone/KAJ?

How about the 90s? Olajuwon, Ewing, David Robinson, Mutombo, Shaq, Mourning - Jokic has never faced an all-time great two-way C like these (well not Dikembe), and they all played in this same decade.

The best defensive C he's faced is Gobert, and Gobert is not the shot blocker any of the above six were. Who's the best offensive C he's faced, Embiid? A center that plays maybe 50 games a season? And Anthony Davis has played PF/C, so it's not like he's had to guard any great offensive Cs like those in the 90s.

Jokic wouldn't struggle to guard post play heavy bigs at all. That's a strength of his. His lack of lateral quickness and foot speed can be exploited by the shifty PnR guards of today's NBA (which was less prevalent back then, both the guards and the PnR frequency).

The question is how much of a hit his offensive production would take when guarded by those 90s bigs. Not a big concern either but certainly more of a question mark than his ability to guard bigs 1 on 1 or in the paint.

[TheGOATRises007]

Would Jokic win 3 MVPs in a league with Larry Bird/Micheal Jordan/Magic Johnson/DrJ/Moses Malone/KAJ?

How about the 90s? Olajuwon, Ewing, David Robinson, Mutombo, Shaq, Mourning - Jokic has never faced an all-time great two-way C like these (well not Dikembe), and they all played in this same decade.

The best defensive C he's faced is Gobert, and Gobert is not the shot blocker any of the above six were. Who's the best offensive C he's faced, Embiid? A center that plays maybe 50 games a season? And Anthony Davis has played PF/C, so it's not like he's had to guard any great offensive Cs like those in the 90s.

Embiid is better than every center you named offensively except for Shaq and Hakeem.

[kcktiny]

Jokic wouldn't struggle to guard post play heavy bigs at all. That's a strength of his.

A strength? Really?

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/defense-dash-overall?PerMode=Totals&PlayerPosition=C&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&dir=A&sort=D_FG_PCT

2024-25 of the 41 Cs having faced 300+ FGAs from <10' of the basket Jokic allowed the 6th highest/worst FG% at 61.0%.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/defense-dash-lt10?Season=2023-24&dir=A&sort=LT_10_PCT

2023-24 of the 45 Cs having faced 300+ FGAs from <10' of the basket Jokic allowed the 5th highest/worst FG% at 59.7%.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/defense-dash-lt10?Season=2022-23&dir=A&sort=LT_10_PCT

2022-23 of the 46 Cs having faced 300+ FGAs from <10' of the basket Jokic allowed the 6th highest/worst FG% at 60.1%.

Yes you go right on and keep perpetuating the complete myth of Jokic being a good defender anywhere near the basket when publicly available defensive shot data clearly shows otherwise.

The past 3 seasons Jokic has been one of absolute worst shot defenders for a C from <10' of the basket. Last I checked most post play occurs within 10' of the basket.

Yet you want us to believe that against the likes of Olajuwon, Ewing, DRob, Shaq, Mourning, and even Mutombo he would defend even better anywhere near the basket?

Embiid is better than every center you named offensively except for Shaq and Hakeem.

Not if he's playing just 50 games a season and only 32 min/g, which is what he averaged the past 9 seasons. Not to mention to two seasons he completely missed - include those and he's down to just 41 games a season. That's playing just 1/2 of every season he's been in the NBA.

Their first 11 seasons:

- Olajuwon played 75 games/season (38 min/g)
- Shaq 67 games/season (38 min/g)
- Ewing 76 games/season (37 min/g)
- Robinson 70 games/season (36 min/g)
- Mutombo 76 games/season (36 min/g)
- Mourning 58 games/season (35 min/g)

Care explaining how Embiid playing 41 games a season is better offensively than the above Cs, with the possible exception of maybe Mutombo?

[Whopper_Sr]

Jokic wouldn't struggle to guard post play heavy bigs at all. That's a strength of his.

A strength? Really?

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/defense-dash-overall?PerMode=Totals&PlayerPosition=C&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&dir=A&sort=D_FG_PCT

2024-25 of the 41 Cs having faced 300+ FGAs from <10' of the basket Jokic allowed the 6th highest/worst FG% at 61.0%.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/defense-dash-lt10?Season=2023-24&dir=A&sort=LT_10_PCT

2023-24 of the 45 Cs having faced 300+ FGAs from <10' of the basket Jokic allowed the 5th highest/worst FG% at 59.7%.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/defense-dash-lt10?Season=2022-23&dir=A&sort=LT_10_PCT

2022-23 of the 46 Cs having faced 300+ FGAs from <10' of the basket Jokic allowed the 6th highest/worst FG% at 60.1%.

Yes you go right on and keep perpetuating the complete myth of Jokic being a good defender anywhere near the basket when publicly available defensive shot data clearly shows otherwise.

The past 3 seasons Jokic has been one of absolute worst shot defenders for a C from <10' of the basket. Last I checked most post play occurs within 10' of the basket.

Yet you want us to believe that against the likes of Olajuwon, Ewing, DRob, Shaq, Mourning, and even Mutombo he would defend even better anywhere near the basket?

Yes, a strength. A strength he doesn't get to display due to the league environment (post play is less prioritized).

Those paint defense/rim protection numbers don't look good but that's primarily due to the inability of Nuggets' perimeter players to contain dribble penetration. The numbers are also exacerbated by Jokic choosing not to contest shots that may put him in foul trouble. As he has a massive offensive load, he doesn't have the luxury of picking up those fouls.

None of these are concerns when guarding other bigs who get into their spots by having the lead guard feed them in the post. Jokic has the physical tools (size, strength, low center of gravity) to keep them at bay. I don't see him struggling in that environment nearly as much as in the current league where his weaknesses can be exploited easier.