Jokic vs Embiid: On-Court Impact

[GeorgeMarcus]

I was going to post a traditional version of my annual 'Embiid impact' thread, but I've decided to take a different approach: Embiid vs Joker I'll start by saying I love Jokic and believe he is the ~6th best player in the NBA (probably better when factoring durability). Fun to watch, endearing personality, and unquestionably worth the hype.

What I call into question however is the notion that Jokic elevates his team more than Embiid. As such I'll direct our attention to career Net Rtg and On/Off to paint the picture as simply as I can. (If you aren't familiar with my opinions on this topic, I believe most "advanced stats" overemphasize box production to which they arbitrarily assign value. I don't consider umbrella metrics like that to be worthwhile because they don't translate to tangible meaning. As opposed to traditional box stats, new tracking data, or iterations of +/- where we know exactly how to interpret the information).

As promised, here is a season-by-season comparison for Net Rtg and On/Off respectively (bolded values indicate the "winner" in each stat category):
Embiid +3.0 / +11.1 ----- Jokic +2.3 / +9.5
Embiid +11.4 / +12.7 ----- Jokic +5.6 / +11.5
Embiid +7.7 / +10.5 ----- Jokic +5.2 / +10.2
Embiid +5.2 / +5.0 ----- Jokic +4.9 / +3.2
Embiid +12.4 / +12.3 ----- Jokic +4.4 / +6.2

Jokic put up +6.6 / +6.4 last year but there is no comparison for Embiid who is one season behind. Otherwise, it's a clean sweep for JoJo.

If your next thought was "OK but Jokic is more successful in the playoffs" I would beg to differ once again. Embiid's cumulative playoff Net Rtg is +9.5 and On/Off is +16.2. Jokic's cumulative playoff Net Rtg is -0.9 and On/Off is +5.2. Embiid leads both by a double digit margin.

When it comes to durability, I totally get that argument and wouldn't blame anyone for favoring Jokic on that basis. However, when the players actually play, I don't see any reason to believe the Joker is more impactful. That's not a knock on Jokic as Joel's on-court impact is truly astounding if you dive into the numbers. Hell, he put up a +3.0 Net Rtg as a rookie with the league's worst supporting cast featuring Nik Stauskas (led the team in minutes), Sergio Garcia and Gerald Henderson. Neither his offensive gravity nor defensive impact are captured in the box score, and that's what most fail to recognize when making this comparison.

If you disagree with the premise that Embiid is equally/more impactful than Jokic while on the court, please enlighten me with your thought process. I promise I'm a very open minded person The good news is, the datasets for both big men indicate superstar-level impact.

Adding RAPM below to rebut 'strength of teammate' arguments:

11/24 RAPM factors in strength of teammates and opponents.

2021: Embiid +3.00 / Jokic +1.77
2020: Embiid +1.22 / Jokic +1.12
2019: Embiid +2.83 / Jokic +1.59
2018: Embiid +3.11 / Jokic +2.54
2017: Embiid +1.40 / Jokic +2.02

(2016: Jokic +1.71)

Source - http://nbashotcharts.com/rapm?id=1509949181

[Mickey8]

Its not even comparable, Denver without Jokic is like the team made of G league players, they look awful, Jokic have horrible team surrounding him , but when healthy he still makes them one of the top teams in the West , Jokic has more impact on winning than Embiid.

[BigGargamel]

I can't speak for the Sixers like OP probably can't speak for the Nuggets, but Denver's entire offense is completely built around Jokic. Take away Murray and Porter and they still consistently win (9-4 before Jokic got hurt). Take away Jokic, even when he has to rest in the third/early fourth quarters, and the team just completely falls apart. Maybe that's on coaching, or his surrounding talent. But he's the most important player in the league in my opinion. But I watch nearly every Nuggets game.

The Sixers are probably in a similar boat without Embiid, but I can't really speak on that.

[God Squad]

I was going to post a traditional version of my annual 'Embiid impact' thread, but I've decided to take a different approach: Embiid vs Joker I'll start by saying I love Jokic and believe he is the ~6th best player in the NBA (probably better when factoring durability). Fun to watch, endearing personality, and unquestionably worth the hype.

What I call into question however is the notion that Jokic elevates his team more than Embiid. As such I'll direct our attention to career Net Rtg and On/Off to paint the picture as simply as I can. (If you aren't familiar with my opinions on this topic, I believe most "advanced stats" overemphasize box production to which they arbitrarily assign value. I don't consider umbrella metrics like that to be worthwhile because they don't translate to tangible meaning. As opposed to traditional box stats, new tracking data, or iterations of +/- where we know exactly how to interpret the information).

As promised, here is a season-by-season comparison for Net Rtg and On/Off respectively (bolded values indicate the "winner" in each stat category):
Embiid +3.0 / +11.1 ----- Jokic +2.3 / +9.5
Embiid +11.4 / +12.7 ----- Jokic +5.6 / +11.5
Embiid +7.7 / +10.5 ----- Jokic +5.2 / +10.2
Embiid +5.2 / +5.0 ----- Jokic +4.9 / +3.2
Embiid +12.4 / +12.3 ----- Jokic +4.4 / +6.2

Jokic put up +6.6 / +6.4 last year but there is no comparison for Embiid who is one season behind. Otherwise, it's a clean sweep for JoJo.

If your next thought was "OK but Jokic is more successful in the playoffs" I would beg to differ once again. Embiid's cumulative playoff Net Rtg is +9.5 and On/Off is +16.2. Jokic's cumulative playoff Net Rtg is -0.9 and On/Off is +5.2. Embiid leads both by a double digit margin.

When it comes to durability, I totally get that argument and wouldn't blame anyone for favoring Jokic on that basis. However, when the players actually play, I don't see any reason to believe the Joker is more impactful. That's not a knock on Jokic as Joel's on-court impact is truly astounding if you dive into the numbers. Hell, he put up a +3.0 Net Rtg as a rookie with the league's worst supporting cast featuring Nik Stauskas (led the team in minutes), Sergio Garcia and Gerald Henderson. Neither his offensive gravity nor defensive impact are captured in the box score, and that's what most fail to recognize when making this comparison.

If you disagree with the premise that Embiid is equally/more impactful than Jokic while on the court, please enlighten me with your thought process. I promise I'm a very open minded person The good news is, the datasets for both big men indicate superstar-level impact.

[QingJames]

I just have a tough time putting much weight in those stats, especially when they indicated Embiid has a much better net rating in the playoffs... yet we've seen Jokic be much, much better than Embiid in the playoffs. Without his second star, Jokic dominated a matchup against the Blazers and carried his team to the second round. Without his second star, Joel got pathetically swept by a team inferior to the Blazers in the Celtics. Maybe I'm not seeing the bigger picture because Jokic is notoriously clutch while Joel is a massive end-of-game playoff choker (crazy that he escaped blame for playing like garbage in the 4th quarters against the Hawks). It could also be that Joel has a much worse roster around him but I struggle to see how that's the case when Jokic had guys like Facundo Campazzo and Austin Rivers as his starting backcourt.

I don't know. The netrating complicates the issue for sure, because Jokic is clearly better with the eye test and when you look at advanced stats (which OP conveniently disregards). But net rating does matter.

[Lockdown504090]

Its not even comparable, Denver without Jokic is like the team made of G league players, they look awful, Jokic have horrible team surrounding him , but when healthy he still makes them one of the top teams in the West , Jokic has more impact on winning than Embiid.

no dog in this race, but when embiid came out of the games against the raptors in 2019 the raptors would go on crazy runs for 2-3 minutes and they would be forced to put him back in the game.
he was +90 in 230 minutes and the raptors outscored philly by 109 in 100 minutes when he sat. pretty crazy considering thats considered one of the best playioff defenses of all time.

[Lockdown504090]

I just have a tough time putting much weight in those stats, especially when they indicated Embiid has a much better net rating in the playoffs... yet we've seen Jokic be much, much better than Embiid in the playoffs. Without his second star, Jokic dominated a matchup against the Blazers and carried his team to the second round. Without his second star, Joel got pathetically swept by a team inferior to the Blazers in the Celtics. Maybe I'm not seeing the bigger picture because Jokic is notoriously clutch while Joel is a massive end-of-game playoff choker (crazy that he escaped blame for playing like garbage in the 4th quarters against the Hawks). It could also be that Joel has a much worse roster around him but I struggle to see how that's the case when Jokic had guys like Facundo Campazzo and Austin Rivers as his starting backcourt.

I don't know. The netrating complicates the issue for sure, because Jokic is clearly better with the eye test and when you look at advanced stats (which OP conveniently disregards). But net rating does matter.

jokic is the most clutch big ever? I think its pretty tough to argue against him

[QingJames]

I just have a tough time putting much weight in those stats, especially when they indicated Embiid has a much better net rating in the playoffs... yet we've seen Jokic be much, much better than Embiid in the playoffs. Without his second star, Jokic dominated a matchup against the Blazers and carried his team to the second round. Without his second star, Joel got pathetically swept by a team inferior to the Blazers in the Celtics. Maybe I'm not seeing the bigger picture because Jokic is notoriously clutch while Joel is a massive end-of-game playoff choker (crazy that he escaped blame for playing like garbage in the 4th quarters against the Hawks). It could also be that Joel has a much worse roster around him but I struggle to see how that's the case when Jokic had guys like Facundo Campazzo and Austin Rivers as his starting backcourt.

I don't know. The netrating complicates the issue for sure, because Jokic is clearly better with the eye test and when you look at advanced stats (which OP conveniently disregards). But net rating does matter.

jokic is the most clutch big ever? I think its pretty tough to argue against him

He's certainly on track for it in any case.

[Black Mage]

This is a fun exercise, I think one of the biggest values that Jokic provides to any team he is on is that he can serve as a "point" center with his vision and passing. I think this gives Jokic a bit more of an advantage especially in down the stretch moments during playoffs in the 4th quarter. At least in theory, I don't know or have the numbers to back it up, but I'd be pretty certain Jokic provides a greater offensive boost in 4th quarter points especially in the playoffs.

Embiid's one huge advantage over Jokic is his defense, but again in late 4th quarter situations that defense can be neutralized a bit if your offense isn't scoring buckets or is suffering from turnovers as now your defense is in scramble mode and you lose the advantage with Embiid in a set defensive situation. Embiid can also be neutralized a bit if the team is hot from the perimeter and just smoking the Sixer guards.

I was never much of a Jokic fan because I hated he didn't care about his conditioning and weight (yes, I had same issue with Embiid) but like Embiid he's changed that aspect. I also gained a lot of respect for him for laying out Morris.

Bottomline, any franchise would be lucky to have either bigman.

[IAMZOOTED2]

I know OP has created an apples to apples comparison here, but the two still seem different to me. Maybe not polar opposites different, but, like... well, Jokic is clearly the better passer/ facilitator, but Jo is clearly a better defender and cleaner upper. Offensively Jo is probably better from mid range and Joker better from deep. Neither are scary in P&R. Neither are really lob threats.

And spare me all the "Joel/Jokic has the worse supporting cast." Honestly, Philly and Denver both look woeful without their big men.

Probably a toss up, which is to say both are incredible and impactful. Switch them and they both probably influence their teams' wins the same..

[TwoStarz]

I just have a tough time putting much weight in those stats, especially when they indicated Embiid has a much better net rating in the playoffs... yet we've seen Jokic be much, much better than Embiid in the playoffs. Without his second star, Jokic dominated a matchup against the Blazers and carried his team to the second round. Without his second star, Joel got pathetically swept by a team inferior to the Blazers in the Celtics. Maybe I'm not seeing the bigger picture because Jokic is notoriously clutch while Joel is a massive end-of-game playoff choker (crazy that he escaped blame for playing like garbage in the 4th quarters against the Hawks). It could also be that Joel has a much worse roster around him but I struggle to see how that's the case when Jokic had guys like Facundo Campazzo and Austin Rivers as his starting backcourt.

I don't know. The netrating complicates the issue for sure, because Jokic is clearly better with the eye test and when you look at advanced stats (which OP conveniently disregards). But net rating does matter.

jokic is the most clutch big ever? I think its pretty tough to argue against him

He's certainly on track for it in any case.

Embiid is usually awful towards the end of games. I don't think he can play high impact minutes night in and night out so why does impact matter if its availability is so limited?

[QingJames]

I know OP has created an apples to apples comparison here, but the two still seem different to me. Maybe not polar opposites different, but, like... well, Jokic is clearly the better passer/ facilitator, but Jo is clearly a better defender and cleaner upper. Offensively Jo is probably better from mid range and Joker better from deep. Neither are scary in P&R. Neither are really lob threats.

And spare me all the "Joel/Jokic has the worse supporting cast." Honestly, Philly and Denver both look woeful without their big men.

Probably a toss up, which is to say both are incredible and impactful. Switch them and they both probably influence their teams' wins the same..

Eh, tbf I think Simmons fits way worse next to Jokic than he does Embiid. Jokic is a better point center than Simmons is a point guard, which would render Simmons completely useless except on defense. Philly probably gets worse if you swap them.

[nate33]

The massive difference between the two players that the OP is not considering is minutes played. Jokic logs a pretty incredible 32-34 minutes a game and never misses a game. Embiid plays 30 minutes and misses 25 games a year. That's not only important for obvious reasons (the best ability is availability) but it also impacts the on/off numbers.

Basically, whenever Jokic is off the court, the opposition has weak second-stringers or a garbage time lineup on the floor. That allows Jokic's weak teammates to tread water and not get crushed in point differential. Embiid sits longer so some of those bench minutes include minutes when the other team with starters back in the game. And certainly when Embiid misses entire games, it allows his teammates to get beat up by the opposition's starters for most of the game. One simply must understand what is going on in the "off" time to evaluate on/off numbers.

Likewise, the "on" minutes are a bit more difficult for Jokic because he is playing more of them while fatigued.

Honestly, on/off numbers are way too imprecise to utilize as a way of comparing two guys on different teams.

[nate33]

Eh, tbf I think Simmons fits way worse next to Jokic than he does Embiid. Jokic is a better point center than Simmons is a point guard, which would render Simmons completely useless except on defense. Philly probably gets worse if you swap them.

I disagree.

The key difference is that Jokic is a great shooter and operates well out of the high post. That leaves room for Simmons to make cuts and exploit mismatches. Embiid does all of his work in the post, leaving nowhere for Simmons to be effective.

[dhsilv2]

The massive difference between the two players that the OP is not considering is minutes played. Jokic logs a pretty incredible 32-34 minutes a game and never misses a game. Embiid plays 30 minutes and misses 25 games a year. That's not only important for obvious reasons (the best ability is availability) but it also impacts the on/off numbers.

Basically, whenever Jokic is off the court, the opposition has weak second-stringers or a garbage time lineup on the floor. That allows Jokic's weak teammates to tread water and not get crushed in point differential. Embiid sits longer so some of those bench minutes include minutes when the other team with starters back in the game. And certainly when Embiid misses entire games, it allows his teammates to get beat up by the opposition's starters for most of the game. One simply must understand what is going on in the "off" time to evaluate on/off numbers.

Likewise, the "on" minutes are a bit more difficult for Jokic because he is playing more of them while fatigued.

Honestly, on/off numbers are way too imprecise to utilize as a way of comparing two guys on different teams.

A quick eye ball but the gap in playing time shows up in the playoffs too. All the more reason we'd be better off with RAPM data vs raw on off with these two. At least RAPM attempts to correct. Maybe a 3 year RAPM could solve some of this noise for us.

[Bum Adebayo]

I think both are a bit overrated, they both need a shot creator at the end of the day to do real damage in playoffs.

[QingJames]

Eh, tbf I think Simmons fits way worse next to Jokic than he does Embiid. Jokic is a better point center than Simmons is a point guard, which would render Simmons completely useless except on defense. Philly probably gets worse if you swap them.

I disagree.

The key difference is that Jokic is a great shooter and operates well out of the high post. That leaves room for Simmons to make cuts and exploit mismatches. Embiid does all of his work in the post, leaving nowhere for Simmons to be effective.

How can you say Jokic is a great shooter but Embiid isn't? That's nonsense. This year, Embiid is only taking 2.4 FGA in the restricted area and 3.2 in the paint outside of the RA. Jokic is taking 6.6(!) in the RA and an additional 4.2 in the paint outside of the RA. They're about equivalent in % and shot attempts from distance, and Embiid takes 4 more shots in the midrange than Jokic does.

The only big man shooter better than Embiid is KAT, who Simmons would look better beside. I still put Jokic above Embiid because his passing makes him much more versatile and more useful offensively IMO, but Embiid is a great shooter for a big man. One of the best of all time.

[Mickey8]

I know OP has created an apples to apples comparison here, but the two still seem different to me. Maybe not polar opposites different, but, like... well, Jokic is clearly the better passer/ facilitator, but Jo is clearly a better defender and cleaner upper. Offensively Jo is probably better from mid range and Joker better from deep. Neither are scary in P&R. Neither are really lob threats.

And spare me all the "Joel/Jokic has the worse supporting cast." Honestly, Philly and Denver both look woeful without their big men.

Probably a toss up, which is to say both are incredible and impactful. Switch them and they both probably influence their teams' wins the same..

Jokic doesn't miss from the mid range, he's overall better shooter than Embiid . Embiid has much better supporting cast and its note even close, Sixers have proved that when they beaten Denver recently.

[Mickey8]

Eh, tbf I think Simmons fits way worse next to Jokic than he does Embiid. Jokic is a better point center than Simmons is a point guard, which would render Simmons completely useless except on defense. Philly probably gets worse if you swap them.

I disagree.

The key difference is that Jokic is a great shooter and operates well out of the high post. That leaves room for Simmons to make cuts and exploit mismatches. Embiid does all of his work in the post, leaving nowhere for Simmons to be effective.

How can you say Jokic is a great shooter but Embiid isn't? That's nonsense. This year, Embiid is only taking 2.4 FGA in the restricted area and 3.2 in the paint outside of the RA. Jokic is taking 6.6(!) in the RA and an additional 4.2 in the paint outside of the RA. They're about equivalent in % and shot attempts from distance, and Embiid takes 4 more shots in the midrange than Jokic does.

The only big man shooter better than Embiid is KAT, who Simmons would look better beside. I still put Jokic above Embiid because his passing makes him much more versatile and more useful offensively IMO, but Embiid is a great shooter for a big man. One of the best of all time.

Jokic is the better shooter than Embiid and its not close , all the career shooting percentages are in Jokic favor. Town is the only better three point shooter than Jokic, but he takes a lot of them per game.

[nate33]

Eh, tbf I think Simmons fits way worse next to Jokic than he does Embiid. Jokic is a better point center than Simmons is a point guard, which would render Simmons completely useless except on defense. Philly probably gets worse if you swap them.

I disagree.

The key difference is that Jokic is a great shooter and operates well out of the high post. That leaves room for Simmons to make cuts and exploit mismatches. Embiid does all of his work in the post, leaving nowhere for Simmons to be effective.

How can you say Jokic is a great shooter but Embiid isn't? That's nonsense. This year, Embiid is only taking 2.4 FGA in the restricted area and 3.2 in the paint outside of the RA. Jokic is taking 6.6(!) in the RA and an additional 4.2 in the paint outside of the RA. They're about equivalent in % and shot attempts from distance, and Embiid takes 4 more shots in the midrange than Jokic does.

The only big man shooter better than Embiid is KAT, who Simmons would look better beside. I still put Jokic above Embiid because his passing makes him much more versatile and more useful offensively IMO, but Embiid is a great shooter for a big man. One of the best of all time.

Embiid is also a great shooter, but most of his outside shots take place out on the wing, and he is mostly just looking to take that midrange jumper or maneuver into a post up. It's an offensive set designed to put Embiid in isolation as a scorer. It's certainly effective, but it's not an ideal set for Embiid to be a playmaker and utilize Simmons effectively off ball.

Jokic does his work from the high post. He is the team's PG, generating offense for everyone as they cut around him. I think Simmons can fill a role as a cutter in that system far easier.