Jokic v. Bird

[kcktiny]

Yes, a strength. A strength he doesn't get to display due to the league environment

Number of FGAs faced <10' of the basket by Jokic the past 3 seasons:

2024-25 - 697 -3rd most faced by a C
2023-24 - 873 - 1st/most faced by a C
2022-23 - 754 - 4th most faced by a C

For a C that "doesn't get to display" his interior shot defense he has certainly had ample opportunity to do so.

Those paint defense/rim protection numbers don't look good

You bet - they are awful. Among the highest/worst among all Cs in the league three years in a row.

that's primarily due to the inability of Nuggets' perimeter players to contain dribble penetration

That's primarily due to Jokic being a very poor interior shot defender.

The numbers are also exacerbated by Jokic choosing not to contest shots that may put him in foul trouble.

Choosing not to contest shots? That is certainly evidence of a player choosing to be a poor shot defender.

As he has a massive offensive load, he doesn't have the luxury of picking up those fouls.

Massive, huh?

Jokic the past 3 seasons was the ages of 27-29. In that same age range Cs like David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, and Shaquille O'Neal had higher/worse per game rates for fouls committed (2.9, 3.6, 3.2 pf/g) than did Jokic (2.4 pg/g), yet all 3 scored significantly more points and grabbed significantly more offensive rebounds than did Jokic, all while being much better shot defenders than Jokic.

You do appear to have a number of excuses for Jokic's poor interior shot defense.

The past 8 seasons Denver on defense has allowed the 9th highest 2pt FG% among all 30 teams at 53.7%. During that time Jokic played 7/10 of the team's minutes at C, and played 4846 more minutes than any other Nuggets player over those 8 years. He is clearly the key reason why their team defensive 2pt FG% allowed has been one of the highest/worst in the league over all that time.

I don't see him struggling in that environment

Not surprising as you do not appear to see him struggling in this environment - despite evidence that clearly shows otherwise.

[Peregrine01]

He's not a good rim protector, everyone knows that. And he takes plays off on defense in the regular season. But the Nuggets have been a solid defense in the playoffs since they started contending for titles despite Jokic's weaknesses and the Nuggets not exactly having great defensive talent around him.

[kcktiny]

But the Nuggets have been a solid defense in the playoffs

Jokic has been in the playoffs the past 7 seasons (2018-19 to 2024-25). During that time 29 teams were in the playoffs.

These 7 years in the playoffs Denver allowed the 11th highest/worst 2pt FG% among these 29 teams at 53.6%. Their team was the 8th worst defensively at 113.8 pts/100poss allowed. Jokic played - by far - the most minutes for Denver (3601), 500 more minutes than any other Nuggets player.

In just the past 2 seasons (2023-24 to 2024-25) among the 20 teams in the playoffs Denver allowed the 4th highest/worst 2pt FG% at 55.9%. Jokic again lead them in minutes played.

[FrodoBaggins]

But the Nuggets have been a solid defense in the playoffs

Jokic has been in the playoffs the past 7 seasons (2018-19 to 2024-25). During that time 29 teams were in the playoffs.

These 7 years in the playoffs Denver allowed the 11th highest/worst 2pt FG% among these 29 teams at 53.6%. Their team was the 8th worst defensively at 113.8 pts/100poss allowed. Jokic played - by far - the most minutes for Denver (3601), 500 more minutes than any other Nuggets player.

In just the past 2 seasons (2023-24 to 2024-25) among the 20 teams in the playoffs Denver allowed the 4th highest/worst 2pt FG% at 55.9%. Jokic again lead them in minutes played.

You know there are on-court, off-court, and on-off statistics available, right? I'm not sure why you're penalizing him for how his team performs with him on the bench. Nikola has a -0.6 on-court playoff opponent-adjusted DRtg for his entire 7-year, 94-game postseason career. And it has been trending up in recent seasons.

There are more granular statistics available and I suggest you use them.

Playoff rORTG and rDRTG (relative Offensive/Defensive Ratings) is the player's career on court offensive/defensive ratings in the playoffs relative to their playoff opponents' reg season defensive ratings. This gives us a more fair measure of how the team offense/defense performed.

[tsherkin]

The question is he better than Larry Bird?

Handily, yes. With due respect to Larry, who was amazing, and is starting to get crapped on by some of the younger crowd, unfortunately.

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

Maybe? Right at the end of the 80s when everyone was peaking? Probably not. But then again, MJ also only won a single MVP in the 80s, for what that's worth.

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.

He's certainly up there. I think narrative weight and nostalgia lends a lot to the aura/reputation of any player from "back in my day," which is something I am as guilty of as anyone else. It's tough to break out of the emotional content of the guys you grew up watching, after all.

But yeah, Jokic is a monster.

You put Larry or Magic or Jordan in today's game, they also remain incredible, dominant players. I don't see MJ hitting 5 MVPs in today's league any more than I see Jokic likely to win 3 in the second half of the 80s... but if he started his career in 79-80, he might have. And if you gave him the same kind of team quality we saw Bird and Magic enjoy, he'd be titling all over the place.

It's always a little tough to have these conversations for me, because lots of people (not saying you're doing this) want to believe that supporting one guy is denigrating the other, you know? But I have a healthy amount of respect for Bird. Jokic is just... 60 pounds heavier, a couple inches taller, himself an excellent shooter, dominant post scorer, excellent rebounder, phenomenal playmaker, etc. He's got more physical presence than Bird did, he's a much better offensive rebounder, etc, etc, etc. It's an aggregate of things.

Bird had incredible swagger and was generally pretty awesome, particularly at his peak. But I think Jokic takes this.

[kcktiny]

You know there are on-court, off-court, and on-off statistics available, right? I'm not sure why you're penalizing him for how his team performs with him on the bench.

Why "I" am penalizing him? "I" am doing no such thing.

That individual defensive shot data that shows how poor Jokic's interior shot defense has been for years comes straight off the NBA.com website. That's the camera data they've been tracking for over a decade.

Nikola has a -0.6 on-court playoff opponent-adjusted DRtg for his entire 7-year, 94-game postseason career. And it has been trending up in recent seasons. There are more granular statistics available and I suggest you use them.

I suggest you take the time to learn just exactly what DRtg does - and does not - measure.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

DRtg:

Out of necessity (owing to a lack of defensive data in the basic boxscore), individual Defensive Ratings are heavily influenced by the team's defensive efficiency. They assume that all teammates are equally good (per minute) at forcing non-steal turnovers and non-block misses, as well as assuming that all teammates face the same number of total possessions per minute.

Yes - that's right - this DRtg you are quoting as if it measures anything of importance and that you are claiming somehow measures individual player defense accurately does not include any component - whatsoever - for individual player shot defense.

The most important factor in individual player defense - player shot defense, which Jokic is poor at, in particular interior shot defense - is NOT any part of DRtg.

DRtg, outside of shot blocking, assumes each and every player on a team equal in shot defense. And DRtg has been around for a couple of decades.

I suggest you learn more about how to evaluate individual player defense - in a granular way.

[FrodoBaggins]

Do you seriously not understand the difference between box score-derived DRtg and PBP DRtg?

[Djoker]

A lot of people mentioning longevity here but career rankings are also largely about accomplishments. Bird has 3 titles and Jokic has 1. Fair or not, unless Jokic wins more, he may never pass Bird on the all-time list.

[lessthanjake]

A lot of people mentioning longevity here but career rankings are also largely about accomplishments. Bird has 3 titles and Jokic has 1. Fair or not, unless Jokic wins more, he may never pass Bird on the all-time list.

Yeah, I think this is exactly right. To me, Jokic is pretty clearly a better player than Bird. Which isn’t a knock on Bird as much as a reflection of me thinking extremely highly of Jokic as a player. But Jokic is still behind Bird on an all-time list for me, because Bird accomplished substantially more at a team level.

[Peregrine01]

But the Nuggets have been a solid defense in the playoffs

Jokic has been in the playoffs the past 7 seasons (2018-19 to 2024-25). During that time 29 teams were in the playoffs.

These 7 years in the playoffs Denver allowed the 11th highest/worst 2pt FG% among these 29 teams at 53.6%. Their team was the 8th worst defensively at 113.8 pts/100poss allowed. Jokic played - by far - the most minutes for Denver (3601), 500 more minutes than any other Nuggets player.

In just the past 2 seasons (2023-24 to 2024-25) among the 20 teams in the playoffs Denver allowed the 4th highest/worst 2pt FG% at 55.9%. Jokic again lead them in minutes played.

You know there are on-court, off-court, and on-off statistics available, right? I'm not sure why you're penalizing him for how his team performs with him on the bench. Nikola has a -0.6 on-court playoff opponent-adjusted DRtg for his entire 7-year, 94-game postseason career. And it has been trending up in recent seasons.

There are more granular statistics available and I suggest you use them.

Playoff rORTG and rDRTG (relative Offensive/Defensive Ratings) is the player's career on court offensive/defensive ratings in the playoffs relative to their playoff opponents' reg season defensive ratings. This gives us a more fair measure of how the team offense/defense performed.

Nice chart. I wonder how this looks for other big men contemporaries for reference?

[One_and_Done]

A lot of people mentioning longevity here but career rankings are also largely about accomplishments. Bird has 3 titles and Jokic has 1. Fair or not, unless Jokic wins more, he may never pass Bird on the all-time list.

The number of rings you have is not a sensible indicator of how good you were at basketball.

[lessthanjake]

A lot of people mentioning longevity here but career rankings are also largely about accomplishments. Bird has 3 titles and Jokic has 1. Fair or not, unless Jokic wins more, he may never pass Bird on the all-time list.

The number of rings you have is not a sensible indicator of how good you were at basketball.

But “how good you were at basketball” is not really the whole picture when the question is who had a better career. The number of rings you have is actually a big part of how good your career was. And I’ll note that I think you’d struggle to find any current or former NBA player who would disagree with that.

[tsherkin]

But “how good you were at basketball” is not really the whole picture when the question is who had a better career. The number of rings you have is actually a big part of how good your career was. And I’ll note that I think you’d struggle to find any current or former NBA player who would disagree with that.

Sure, but there is a HUMONGOUS degree of luck and circumstance involved in winning rings, right? So there is a limitation to how useful that is, depending on the specific question. It comes back to the whole Robert Horry Principle, you know?

[lessthanjake]

But “how good you were at basketball” is not really the whole picture when the question is who had a better career. The number of rings you have is actually a big part of how good your career was. And I’ll note that I think you’d struggle to find any current or former NBA player who would disagree with that.

Sure, but there is a HUMONGOUS degree of luck and circumstance involved in winning rings, right? So there is a limitation to how useful that is, depending on the specific question. It comes back to the whole Robert Horry Principle, you know?

Sure, that’s why it’s pretty typical to take both factors into account when ranking a player. Which is why Robert Horry is not above Nikola Jokic on an all-time list, but Bird probably is, even as someone who thinks Jokic is a better player than Bird.

[Cavsfansince84]

A lot of people mentioning longevity here but career rankings are also largely about accomplishments. Bird has 3 titles and Jokic has 1. Fair or not, unless Jokic wins more, he may never pass Bird on the all-time list.

It's fair to bring up titles/finals but it's not like there's just one all time list. People who favor team success in making lists may favor Bird no matter what Jokic does from here short of more team success. Others won't care as much and some already have him in their top 10. The one thing I'll say is that in terms of playoff performance that Jokic seems like the more consistent/better performer. Personally I'd like to see a bit more team success from Jokic before I'd have him as top 10.

[SNPA]

Different eras. Different position. Let's look at how they stacked up against their peers.

Bird age 23 - 31, 9 seasons:

9 All NBA 1st teams
9 All star teams
1 fourth place MVP (his rookie year)
3 second place MVPs in a row (before the three MVPs in a row)
3 MVPs (in a row)
1 second place MVP (after the three MVPs in a row)
1 fourth place MVP (age 31)
ROY
3 All Defensive teams
Twice getting votes for DPOY
3 Titles

I love Jokic's game. He is Bird reborn as a center in the modern era. He has another two years to get to age 31. So far from age 23:

5 All NBA 1st teams/2 All NBA 2nd teams
7 All star teams
1 fourth place MVP
1 ninth place MVP
3 MVPs (not consecutive)
2 second place MVPs
3 times getting votes for clutch player of the year (did not exist during Bird's time)
1 Title

Per Basketball Reference

Again, I love Jokic. Fantastic player. I'm not trying to say a single thing bad about him. But...he'd have to deliver big time on the MVP/All 1st team fronts and really another title (unless he can blow us away with MVPs) to stack up to Bird.

The gap isn't skill or talent and the gap isn't huge. But there's a gap. The gap is Jokic would rather ride horses and ignore you, Bird would rather bury you and piss on your grave.

[Ol Roy]

I've always viewed Jokic and Bird as fairly similar in that they are athletically limited, but tall/strong white dudes who can pass and shoot at a high level. Another guy in that category, though on a lower tier, is Bird's contemporary Jack Sikma.

[tsherkin]

Sure, that’s why it’s pretty typical to take both factors into account when ranking a player. Which is why Robert Horry is not above Nikola Jokic on an all-time list, but Bird probably is, even as someone who thinks Jokic is a better player than Bird.

Indeed. And so specifying exactly what you're ranking matters so very much, because if we're ranking quality of career with the barest touch of player ability, that's very different from trying to do any kind of actual differentiation between players.

So for example, saying Robert Horry had a better career than, I dunno, Chris Webber, is its own set of commentary. Bird and Jokic have MVPs and their own title(s)... but I don't think Bird's stacked squads helping him win more titles than Jokic says a lot other than Bird was luckier. So it comes back to "what are you trying to say," and "does it really have any value in conversational context?" I don't mean that in the "does what lessthanjake have to say" sense; I mean overall, broadening out.

I feel like a lot of what we do on this board is designed to get us beyond "rings" as an argument, and into more evaluation of actual player ability. Which is why guys like Stockton and KG get a little more love here than in some other spaces. Not just because of plus-minus stuff, but we're trying to articulate ability, not just contextual circumstance.

[tsherkin]

Again, I love Jokic. Fantastic player. I'm not trying to say a single thing bad about him. But...he'd have to deliver big time on the MVP/All 1st team fronts and really another title (unless he can blow us away with MVPs) to stack up to Bird.

Why?

With such a massive difference in surrounding talent, why does Jokic have to do more with less to stack up?

[lessthanjake]

Sure, that’s why it’s pretty typical to take both factors into account when ranking a player. Which is why Robert Horry is not above Nikola Jokic on an all-time list, but Bird probably is, even as someone who thinks Jokic is a better player than Bird.

Indeed. And so specifying exactly what you're ranking matters so very much, because if we're ranking quality of career with the barest touch of player ability, that's very different from trying to do any kind of actual differentiation between players.

So for example, saying Robert Horry had a better career than, I dunno, Chris Webber, is its own set of commentary. Bird and Jokic have MVPs and their own title(s)... but I don't think Bird's stacked squads helping him win more titles than Jokic says a lot other than Bird was luckier. So it comes back to "what are you trying to say," and "does it really have any value in conversational context?" I don't mean that in the "does what lessthanjake have to say" sense; I mean overall, broadening out.

I feel like a lot of what we do on this board is designed to get us beyond "rings" as an argument, and into more evaluation of actual player ability. Which is why guys like Stockton and KG get a little more love here than in some other spaces. Not just because of plus-minus stuff, but we're trying to articulate ability, not just contextual circumstance.

I think one can look at impact and ability in depth without entirely losing sight of the fact that having team success matters a great deal when ranking a player’s greatness in a team sport. To me, those two concepts aren’t mutually exclusive at all. People have always ranked players based on some combination of the eye test, a player’s personal stats/accolades, and their team success. I think the tools people use here can often allow us to have a better grasp on the statistical element (as well as potentially the eye test, though much of the tracking done here has been…ideological in nature, and therefore not overly helpful IMO). In other words, I think we get a better assessment of a player’s statistical case by looking at not just raw box stats but also impact data and whatnot. That ends up being to the benefit of certain players whose impact data looks better than their box data (and vice versa is the case too). But that doesn’t mean that team success goes by the wayside when assessing a player’s all-time place. It just means that we’ve honed the tools we have to assess one of the other major pillars of player greatness (i.e. the statistical element). Becoming better at assessing individual statistical data does not mean team success stops mattering IMO.