Would Jokic have been the best player in the NBA in 1962?

[rand]

1962 was the season where Wilt famously averaged 50 PPG but still lost out on the MVP to Russell.

Jokic shot .652 on 2PAs this season and 81% from the line. Just on his 2PAs and FTs Jokic averaged 23.1 PPG on .697 TS%. And unlike some other ultra efficient big men like Gobert who need to have a playmaker gift wrap them the basket or get it off the glass, Jokic creates his own 2pt shot at extremely high efficiency. Only 58% of Jokic' 2pt FGs this season were assisted, only 53% on his career, lower than Shaq by almost 10%. Jokic also broke through as a defender this season posting a #15 DRAPM ranking.

Would Jokic have been the best player in the NBA in 1962? If not where would he rank?

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt and Russell would have run him into the ground when they matched up against him.

I can easily see both of them just abusing a tired Jokic on the boards.

[70sFan]

He'd certainly be in discussion, but I don't think he'd reach peak Russell impact.

[WestGOAT]

Wilt and Russell would have run him into the ground when they matched up against him.

I can easily see both of them just abusing a tired Jokic on the boards.

would be interesting to know how Jokic would fare in a league with an average pace of 126 (1962) compared to 98.2 (2022).

[Dutchball97]

Tough to say when the eras are so different. He'd have some huge advantages due to 60 years of basketball innovation but on the other hand he'd have to adapt to a completely different playstyle. I think his offense would be higher volume but less efficient, while his defense is probably a lot better due to dealing with much less switches.

[Mazter]

When you insert today's efficiency into the 60's it's already unfair. With Jokic's efficiency it would be a total cheat code. The man is +16.7 rFG% from 3-10 ft, +13.4 rFG% from 10-16 ft and +6.7 rFG% from 16 to the arc in today's game. His 56.5% from 10-16 FT alone would blow Wilt's then set record of 50.9 FG% away by a mile. Add a 60.6% from 3-10, 81 FT% and his passing skills and offensively there is no match to him in 1962. Defensively he would have it easier, as he mostly needs to defend the post, rather than "unnecesarily" chase down shots from 15 feet away.

The thing about Jokic's is that people think his stamina is bad. But he moves as much as any other center in the game. He ranks 5th in movements on offense, 9th on defense, 6th overall. He played 65 minutes once which is third all time (both RS and PS) and his 22,238 feet ran that day is second all time recorded and probably top 5 all time. I don't think he would have a problem of playing 40-45 minutes on 62's pace and game speed. He would be among the best, the best, possible but not a certainty.

[Franco]

When you insert today's efficiency into the 60's it's already unfair. With Jokic's efficiency it would be a total cheat code. The man is +16.7 rFG% from 3-10 ft, +13.4 rFG% from 10-16 ft and +6.7 rFG% from 16 to the arc in today's game. His 56.5% from 10-16 FT alone would blow Wilt's then set record of 50.9 FG% away by a mile. Add a 60.6% from 3-10, 81 FT% and his passing skills and offensively there is no match to him in 1962. Defensively he would have it easier, as he mostly needs to defend the post, rather than "unnecesarily" chase down shots from 15 feet away.

The thing about Jokic's is that people think his stamina is bad. But he moves as much as any other center in the game. He ranks 5th in movements on offense, 9th on defense, 6th overall. He played 65 minutes once which is third all time (both RS and PS) and his 22,238 feet ran that day is second all time recorded and probably top 5 all time. I don't think he would have a problem of playing 40-45 minutes on 62's pace and game speed. He would be among the best, the best, possible but not a certainty.

Fun fact: Jokic holds the record for most minutes played in a playoffs game, in that game against Portland a few years ago that a million overtimes

[Samurai]

Tough to say when the eras are so different. He'd have some huge advantages due to 60 years of basketball innovation but on the other hand he'd have to adapt to a completely different playstyle. I think his offense would be higher volume but less efficient, while his defense is probably a lot better due to dealing with much less switches.

He only gets the innovation advantage if he were put into a time machine. Since time machines don't exist, I'm assuming we are talking about if Jokic were born in 1936 (the year Wilt was born). In that case, I think he'd be the 3rd or 4th best player.

[Dutchball97]

Tough to say when the eras are so different. He'd have some huge advantages due to 60 years of basketball innovation but on the other hand he'd have to adapt to a completely different playstyle. I think his offense would be higher volume but less efficient, while his defense is probably a lot better due to dealing with much less switches.

He only gets the innovation advantage if he were put into a time machine. Since time machines don't exist, I'm assuming we are talking about if Jokic were born in 1936 (the year Wilt was born). In that case, I think he'd be the 3rd or 4th best player.

In that case he'd never develop half the shooting range he has now and he'd never have been such a good playmaker. You're essentially just popping in a decently athletic near 7 foot guy that has little to do with how Jokic plays now.

[Dooley]

Jokic is the best (IMO clear best) player in the league in 2022, and I tend to think the quality of competition is somewhat higher overall in 2022 compared to 1962. So just on that very surface-level analysis, I would expect Jokic to be the best player in 1962 as well without some strong arguments to the contrary. And looking at Jokic's play I think a huge amount of it would translate. He's a great all-around scorer and playmaker who also has excellent shooting range for a big man and also an exceptionally good rebounder. I would expect him to be a very high-efficiency scorer relative to his environment, I would expect him to be the best or 2nd best passer in the league, and I would expect him to still be one of the best rebounders in the league. And I think his defense would probably play better in that environment than it does now - I think his biggest weakness defensively is getting targeted in space and that's significantly less salient in 1962.

Obviously the conditioning and playtime stuff is the biggest weakness, and it's very possible that Wilt or Russell would be more valuable overall with that in mind. But I'm pretty confident that Jokic would be the most valuable offensive player in the league, a strong contender for best per-minute player in the league overall, and I think he would be ridiculous in the playoffs (where his playing time and usage generally spike). Like, at the end of the day, Jokic is a 6'11 guy who has one of the most impressive combinations of BBIQ and skill that we've ever seen in basketball. Those are attributes that play in any era. And there are tons of guys who are more athletic and bigger and play more minutes than Jokic right now, and Jokic is still clearly more valuable than them.

[Dr Positivity]

If you gave him all his skills yes, but that's not really fair

[Samurai]

Tough to say when the eras are so different. He'd have some huge advantages due to 60 years of basketball innovation but on the other hand he'd have to adapt to a completely different playstyle. I think his offense would be higher volume but less efficient, while his defense is probably a lot better due to dealing with much less switches.

He only gets the innovation advantage if he were put into a time machine. Since time machines don't exist, I'm assuming we are talking about if Jokic were born in 1936 (the year Wilt was born). In that case, I think he'd be the 3rd or 4th best player.

In that case he'd never develop half the shooting range he has now and he'd never have been such a good playmaker. You're essentially just popping in a decently athletic near 7 foot guy that has little to do with how Jokic plays now.

Exactly, which is the key point that many don't consider when making cross-era comparisons. Time machines don't exist, so when we just play make believe they inherently favor modern players because they get the benefit of standing on the shoulders of giants, not to mention all the advantages that modern day medicine, training, nutrition and travel provides, while old-timers do not. If you try to imagine if a person were born in 1995 or 1936, it at least puts these cross-era comparisons on a somewhat more level playing field. I'm assuming Jokic would still have his natural gifts as a shooter, passer and rebounder but, just as Wilt and Russell had to contend with, he would be raised with the same coaching philosophies and playstyle methodologies that they had.

[tsherkin]

Cross-era comparisons are always brutal because there are so many variables.

But yeah, if you took him as he is now and tossed him back into the 60s, he'd be a top 3 player. You'd remove the three, of course, and so his efficiency would drop a little, but he'd still be basically the most efficient scorer. But he'd be playing at a faster tempo, and he'd be asked to shoot more than he does now, so that would probably erode his efficiency a little. The rims were crappier, so he'd get a little less love from that, so maybe shave a point or two off here and there. Either way, still a stunning offensive player without a doubt. Then you have to wonder if the coach he'd get would let him play quite like he does now, though obviously he has no trouble or issue with isolating on the block. The passing lanes would look a little different because everyone played a little closer to the paint because why wouldn't you? What's the point, without a 3pt line, of stretching all that distance back? So that would constrain things just a little. And then you start wondering about progressive fatigue with buses and different team budgets and understanding for stuff like medical and whatever. I don't think we're looking at a guy who plays identically to the way Jokic plays now after even a few weeks. Still amazing, still one of the three best bigs in the league, etc, etc, but you can't just port his numbers back into the 60s directly because it's just not the same environment.

[Dooley]

Tough to say when the eras are so different. He'd have some huge advantages due to 60 years of basketball innovation but on the other hand he'd have to adapt to a completely different playstyle. I think his offense would be higher volume but less efficient, while his defense is probably a lot better due to dealing with much less switches.

He only gets the innovation advantage if he were put into a time machine. Since time machines don't exist, I'm assuming we are talking about if Jokic were born in 1936 (the year Wilt was born). In that case, I think he'd be the 3rd or 4th best player.

In that case he'd never develop half the shooting range he has now and he'd never have been such a good playmaker. You're essentially just popping in a decently athletic near 7 foot guy that has little to do with how Jokic plays now.

I don't understand why Jokic's BBIQ and shooting and finishing skill just disappear? A lot of that is based on natural ability. Everyone else playing today has the same advantages that Jokic does, and Jokic is still one of the most skilled and intelligent players in the world, in a time period where far more people play basketball / high level basketball.

Of course his play style wouldn't be the same and how his skillset manifests itself is going to change based on the period. but I think you have to give Jokic credit as being an outlier in terms of skill and BBIQ relative to whatever period he would play in.

[DQuinn1575]

When you insert today's efficiency into the 60's it's already unfair. With Jokic's efficiency it would be a total cheat code. The man is +16.7 rFG% from 3-10 ft, +13.4 rFG% from 10-16 ft and +6.7 rFG% from 16 to the arc in today's game. His 56.5% from 10-16 FT alone would blow Wilt's then set record of 50.9 FG% away by a mile. Add a 60.6% from 3-10, 81 FT% and his passing skills and offensively there is no match to him in 1962. Defensively he would have it easier, as he mostly needs to defend the post, rather than "unnecesarily" chase down shots from 15 feet away.

The thing about Jokic's is that people think his stamina is bad. But he moves as much as any other center in the game. He ranks 5th in movements on offense, 9th on defense, 6th overall. He played 65 minutes once which is third all time (both RS and PS) and his 22,238 feet ran that day is second all time recorded and probably top 5 all time. I don't think he would have a problem of playing 40-45 minutes on 62's pace and game speed. He would be among the best, the best, possible but not a certainty.

He's not shooting those percentages in a game with a much faster tempo. I don't know what he or anyone would shoot in a game played at that pace. Anybody ever try and figure that out?

[An Unbiased Fan]

People need to stop assuming the same efficiency numbers across eras. Rules were very different in 1962

[scrabbarista]

Nothing like Jokic could have existed at that time, so in my opinion he wouldn't have been the best in the league if he'd grown up (in America, obviously) in that era. But if you gave him proper prep on the officiating/rules, etc., and sent him back in a time machine, I think he'd be the best, so I voted #1.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think even if you give him his current skill set he'd be 3rd or 4th best player. Because you are taking away his 3 pt shot and rim protection and rebounding were probably around 40% more valuable in 1962 compared to today. So there's a trade off. Nothing wrong with being behind prime Russell and Wilt though.

[countryboy667]

With Wilt in his third year in the league averaging 50? And against Bill Russell? NO WAY.

[Statlanta]

Probably not, he would be passing to guys who didn't shoot well, in an era of bad shooting.

Without his playmaking he'd be going against a lot of great C's which this era doesn't have.