Jokic v. Bird

[SNPA]

My point is it cuts both ways.

I don't really think so.

Yes, Jokic had a relatively easy path to the title, but he basically had a 94 Rockets type of situation.

Similarly to 2022 Curry, that may be true on paper, considering the average quality of the players involved over the surrounding years, but far from true in the actual postseason in question.

As a quick and dirty measurement, his cast provided 2.5 wins over replacement by BPM on the playoffs. That's far from good historically, but it's exactly the same as the Heat sans Butler. The Celtics, a notably fantastic cast which also played 20 games, managed a 3.1 WOR without Tatum.

Of course, Bird had arguably the most loaded non-Warriors cast ever relative to the league, but that's another story.

In the majority of their matchups..is Parrish better than KAJ? Is McHale better than Worthy?

What we’ve learned from Bird and Jokic as examples is this…if you are clearly the most skilled all around player in the world, and you’re viable athletically and size-wise at the NBA level, that makes you the best player on the planet. That’s how this works.

Basketball is a game of skill. Never forget that.

[trex_8063]

Similarly to 2022 Curry, that may be true on paper, considering the average quality of the players involved over the surrounding years, but far from true in the actual postseason in question.

My point was more that they played well in the playoffs. Better than they had in the RS. Murray absolutely lit up the Lakers, and that was big for them during the run.

Murray is and always has been the wildcard. His highs and lows are rather extreme. I struggle to think of another player with more variance.

Isiah Thomas

[tsherkin]

Murray is and always has been the wildcard. His highs and lows are rather extreme.

He's a shooter without the ability to do much when his shot isn't going, but yes, he's a major wild card. If he's on, the Nuggets are a very different team. but generally speaking, he isn't the guard, they REALLY need.

[iggymcfrack]

It's Jokic for both. Jokic has 5 seasons with better numbers than Bird's peak season and 5 playoff runs with better numbers than Bird's best playoff run. Bird has 150 more games which isn't that big of an edge since by Jokic's second season, he's already better than Bird any season from '89 on after the back injury.

[70sFan]

It's Jokic for both. Jokic has 5 seasons with better numbers than Bird's peak season and 5 playoff runs with better numbers than Bird's best playoff run. Bird has 150 more games which isn't that big of an edge since by Jokic's second season, he's already better than Bird any season from '89 on after the back injury.

I certainly wouldn't put a guy who wasn't a full-time starter and wasn't anywhere near close to all-nba level to 1990 Larry Bird.

[Owly]

It's Jokic for both. Jokic has 5 seasons with better numbers than Bird's peak season and 5 playoff runs with better numbers than Bird's best playoff run. Bird has 150 more games which isn't that big of an edge since by Jokic's second season, he's already better than Bird any season from '89 on after the back injury.

I certainly wouldn't put a guy who wasn't a full-time starter and wasn't anywhere near close to all-nba level to 1990 Larry Bird.

I would question on what basis you assert this.

Fwiw on the box side year 2 Jokic
BPM: 7th (7.3)
WS/48: 9th (.228)
PER: 8th (26.3)

On the impact side (playing half the season with an alternate center generally regarded as starting caliber [though whether he's playing at that level..] to either replace him -- or jankying up the on with a dual center lineup that didn't work).


On-off: 11.5 (outlier leader on team among non-garbage-minute players).
He's young enough that I would guess anything tilting heavily on priors probably hasn't caught up yet although fwiw +9.5 on-off the previous year gives some tailwind.

I'm open to being wrong and seeing other, more advanced, better numbers or whatever. But that looks pretty good to me.


I get having that perception at the time if one perceived him as "some second round Euro" (and perhaps the power of Bird's name if we're looking at that comp) but that prior, if it was there should be gone. And it could well be argued that "wasn't a full time starter" is an indication of hanging on to that prior. Because that choice was obviously wrong in hindsight (Jokic did have his supporters at the time).

For whatever it's worth - just in case the conception of "all-NBA level" is less abstract and tied to actual competition the third team center was DeAndre Jordan. And here I kind of wonder whether "All-NBA" means first team (for however much difference that might make) ... but then Bird didn't get that accolade or an MVP finish in line with it so ... you could of course think him that level because these things can easily be wrong but you'd surely still acknowledge that, so I'd guess that isn't what's happening.

You can ding the value add getting limited by 2038 minutes. Even then though I would say that's about the value of the season rather than what his level was as a player.

But ... to get to ... "All-NBA?" No ... "Not All-NBA but close?" No ... "Not All-NBA ... not close to all-NBA ... but somewhat near ... anywhere near close to All-NBA" Still no? I'm genuinely curious here where one comes to that view.

Fwiw (and this was about being anti-anti-Jokic rather than relating to Bird) looking at the Squared data [https://squared2020.com/2025/01/26/1989-1990-nba-rapm/](caveats about single-year impact side stuff - caveats about incomplete data RAPM etc) ... the indication is Bird is good ... maybe not elite. Big margins of uncertainty there of course.

[RCM88x]

Kind of wild that the first time Jokic made ALL-NBA in 2019 he was 1st team, in hindsight (don't remember how I felt at the time) being below both Embiid and KAT in 2018 feels like a bit of a snub.

Does All-NBA team voting from the 80s and 90s really provide any value today? I'd kind of maintain that the teams from this era are completely insignificant to my evaluation. It ultimately is too much of a team success/market size/established star biased process.

[Joao Saraiva]

If we define career by the cumulative value I already have Jokic ahead. But if you factor accodales a lot then there is still no case Jokic cause Bird won a lot more and got more FMVPs.

Since I think Bird won more cause he was with one of the strongest franchises while Jokic plays for Denver who give him old Westbrook during his best years I voted Jokic for both. I think he is the superior player peak/prime and career wise, I already have him in my top 10, while Bird is not in it.

[Verticality]

I concur with the above. I think Jokic is better but Bird is more accomplished. Either answer is valid.