Jokic is basically Larry Bird on a small dose of steroids offensively.

[999Guy]

Look at this:

https://i.ibb.co/4spV7GD/F60-CE04-B-C953-42-EA-8033-7-D54-FC635188.png

That’s ****ing crazy.

Any strength Bird had in his game, Jokic has but its enhanced because he’s a much better athlete.

Jokic kills as a ball handler too. Way more creative and unpredictable as a shot creator from anywhere on the court.

Offensive rebounding, finishing, just as good of a shooter, and better at creating shots. Just as good at passing but maybe better because his hands are massive and he’s stronger so he can fire a bullet one handed like LeBron from a stand still with a wrist flick. And really just doesn’t need a wind up that gives away his passing intention like almost any guard or smaller player. He has a touch pass game like Bird too so he isn’t just some bruiser.

Realistically Jokic’s body will never let him be shut down like Bird in a playoff series.

Playing as good as Jokic is right now is hard so it’s unlikely he’ll keep this up past a few years at most but at this level he could be the best offensive player ever.

[2much_knowledge]

Slap in the face to all those idiots claiming you have to be very athletic to survive in the modern era

[HBK_Kliq_2]

He's a center that doesn't play defense, that will only get you so far. Even Dirk had better defense and he was a power forward. You can't put Tyson Chandler next to this guy though because he's a fuc*in center. I just don't see him winning a title because his defense woes.

Jamal Murray also doesn't get enough credit, he's a tough shot maker and that's always what you need for scoring resilience in the playoffs. Murray is the one who led them in PPG, assist and win shares during their WCF run, also remember that Murray was a Stephen Curry lite prospect in college and Jokic was a 41st pick. Murray may actually be their best player in the playoffs but media is brainwashing everybody with this triple double stuff. Time will tell on that as they spend their primes together.

[Stanley Kobrick]

Slap in the face to all those idiots claiming you have to be very athletic to survive in the modern era
don't let these bullies get to you coach :(

[tontoz]

He's not a much better athlete than Bird lol. He is a lot bigger though which helps him see the floor better and makes it easier to pass.

Jokic made a move the other day I haven't seen in a long time. He was midrange holding the ball over his head looking to pass. The pass was cut off so he went straight into his shot without bringing the ball below his head.

[highwhey]

better than curry for sure

[Smoke117]

Jokic is a much better athlete? :oldlol:

[tpols]

I wouldn't say more athletic, just bigger. Jokic is the slowest most plodding athlete you'll ever see... but his mind is 3 steps ahead of everybody else's. The Nuggets would literally be lotto without him. They don't have a single all star on their team outside jokic. Murray, Gordon, and Porter Jr. have never made a team meanwhile AD has LeBron, Kawhi has Paul George (winning without him), Harden has Durant and Kyrie, Giannis has Middleton etc. Tons of All Star and All NBA help for the other contenders.

[light]

Jokic is no Larry Bird.

I know they do similar things, but the main difference is that in Bird's era he was something the league hadn't seen before and he ended up "saving" the league with his celebrity and game along with Magic Johnson.

In order for Jokic to approximate the effect Bird had on the NBA he'd have to be better than he is. He'd have to be even more special.

The only current players that can say they changed the NBA like Bird and Magic are LeBron and Steph Curry.

[999Guy]

He's not a much better athlete than Bird lol. He is a lot bigger though which helps him see the floor better and makes it easier to pass.

Jokic made a move the other day I haven't seen in a long time. He was midrange holding the ball over his head looking to pass. The pass was cut off so he went straight into his shot without bringing the ball below his head.

Look at it like this, Jokic being elite in the strength and size department makes him unstoppable. This dude treated Zion and Adams like babies a few weeks ago. And when you add that to his handle that allows him to get around smaller players with ease, like I’m talking it’s a layup if a wing is on him 20 feet from the basket ease, and he’s truly unstoppable.

Bird was amazing but he was never unstoppable. But hey, if he had was elite in any athletic department at all in any way, I’m sure he could’ve been.

https://streamable.com/theo0v

I mean look at that. The reason Adams was leaning on him is because he was getting just moved like a child all game. For his size, his feet are really not bad at all. That’s a crazy first step for big man. But his handle makes it so easy for him to score.

Adams is slow these days, but LeBron, Ben Simmons, Draymond, those guys are all getting beat by that spin too. Now those guys probably recover too. But the point is his strengths as an athlete more than make up for his weaknesses when you add the skill. If he can’t get around you, he will get through you and he has the footwork and skill to counter any reactions to his strength.

Jokic is at least as unguardable as say, Kevin Durant at this point. Especially when you consider what you can’t scheme against him because of his passing.

[tontoz]

Being athletic and being big/skilled aren't the same thing. Athleticism is strength, speed, jumping ability, coordination. Jokic does remind me of Bird, basically a bigger version of him, but is a more conservative player. Bird would try strange stuff at times.

Bird was more aggressive looking for his shot and would take more tough shots. This is really the first year where Jokic was aggressively looking to score.

I like Jokic a lot and he's my pick for MVP but he isn't more athletic than Bird who you clearly didn't watch.

This is one of Bird's more famous plays which Jokic could never do.


https://youtu.be/RwjTw40mfls

[Axe]

better than curry for sure
2021 mvp

[Gohan]

2021 mvp

if we give jokic the mvp what is that teaching the young black kids growing up? that it is ok for white males to win mvp? we made that mistake with nash lets not make that mistake again

[Axe]

if we give jokic the mvp what is that teaching the young black kids growing up? that it is ok for white males to win mvp? we made that mistake with nash lets not make that mistake again
Well if it's not going to be jokic, who would be your 2021 mvp then? It shouldn't be stephen curry, that's for sure.

[Gohan]

Well if it's not going to be jokic, who would be your 2021 mvp then? It shouldn't be stephen curry, that's for sure.

curry shouldnt win it, his team is too trashcan. unfortunately jokic maybe the only option. weakest mvp season of all time

[Axe]

curry shouldnt win it, his team is too trashcan. unfortunately jokic maybe the only option. weakest mvp season of all time
Who knows tho? Giannis might also catch up again and take the the last laugh if he propels the bucks to more wins before the season ends but for me, i don't have a problem if jokic ends up taking it.

[BigShotBob]

if we give jokic the mvp what is that teaching the young black kids growing up? that it is ok for white males to win mvp? we made that mistake with nash lets not make that mistake again

Wtf is this :oldlol:

[Mask the Embiid]

Jokic is a stat padding ball dominating center who struggles to score... Larry Ball played within the offense (and was still one of the greatest scorers EVER)... If the coach told Larry Bird "were going to run everything through you tonight. you will make every decision" He would tell the coach "No, thats a low iq'd way to play the game. Thats not winning basketball.....Jokic would say "Yes! Absolutely coach!"

Dont you ever compare him to Bird....The closest thing to bird today is Kevin Durant...have some fking respect for the game!

[tontoz]

Jokic is a stat padding ball dominating center who struggles to score... Larry Ball played within the offense (and was still one of the greatest scorers EVER)... If the coach told Larry Bird "were going to run everything through you tonight. you will make every decision" He would tell the coach "No, thats a low iq'd way to play the game. Thats not winning basketball.....Jokic would say "Yes! Absolutely coach!"

Dont you ever compare him to Bird....The closest thing to bird today is Kevin Durant...have some fking respect for the game!


I see you are still reeling from last night. Don't worry the pain will pass in time.

I know a guy named Manny who can help you get over it.

[AngelEyes]

Bird when he was young and in his prime is clearly a better athlete than Jokic. He was more mobile and agile than Jokic.

[Round Mound]

Being athletic and being big/skilled aren't the same thing. Athleticism is strength, speed, jumping ability, coordination. Jokic does remind me of Bird, basically a bigger version of him, but is a more conservative player. Bird would try strange stuff at times.

Bird was more aggressive looking for his shot and would take more tough shots. This is really the first year where Jokic was aggressively looking to score.

I like Jokic a lot and he's my pick for MVP but he isn't more athletic than Bird who you clearly didn't watch.

This is one of Bird's more famous plays which Jokic could never do.


https://youtu.be/RwjTw40mfls

That's one of the greatest plays ever regarding any era. Bird followed his own shot miss from an initial 20 footer then gets the ball behined the back board with his right hand and switches to his left hand for the put back. Unbelievable. That play very few if none could make it.

[bizil]

Jokic is the CLOSEST THING we've seen to a 7 foot center version of Bird as of now. BEFORE Jokic, that type of center NEVER existed. It's not an MJ-Kobe comparison. Where they play the same position, are about the same size, both freak athletes, etc. Bird was a 6'9-6'10 SF-PF type. BUT when u watch Jokic play, he INDEED is the closest we've seen to the center version of Bird.

They say Luka is the 6'7 point guard version of Bird. Thing is Luka isn't NEARLY as efficient as Bird. Joker has the efficiency, triple double shit, is the best passer at the center spot EVER, and is among the top shooting centers ever. NEARLY a 50-40-90 guy in any given season. So I FOR DAMN SURE see the comparison in a lot of ways. When you combine scoring skillset and passing as a package, Bird was the most skilled SF ever. Jokic is the same among centers.

I wouldn't take it as far as the OP did though. Bird and Magic BASICALLY are the godfathers of positionless basketball. AT LEAST offensively. Magic could LEGIT play PG to PF and even at times center. And I'M SURE Bird could have played SG to C. Not sure about PG due to handles and pace. BUT he could pass better than most PG's. Boston just NEVER exploited his positional versatility. Jokic ISN'T capable of doing that. He's an INSANELY skilled center for sure. But he's NOT a postionless type of 7 footer. Like a Giannis or KG.

But among the perimeter players, KD is like a mix of T Mac, Bird, Gervin, and McAdoo. The Bird part is being a 50-40-90 sharpshooter while averaging 27-30 PPG every season. KD just doesn't have the triple double bag Bird had. Or the passing ability. That's why it goes back to Joker being the CLOSEST THING to Bird as of now. EVEN THOUGH he plays center. If Luka gets more efficient, the point guard version of Bird comp would be more apt. Even though I INDEED do see shades of a point guard version of Bird for sure.

[plowking]

Jokic is a stat padding ball dominating center who struggles to score... Larry Ball played within the offense (and was still one of the greatest scorers EVER)... If the coach told Larry Bird "were going to run everything through you tonight. you will make every decision" He would tell the coach "No, thats a low iq'd way to play the game. Thats not winning basketball.....Jokic would say "Yes! Absolutely coach!"

Dont you ever compare him to Bird....The closest thing to bird today is Kevin Durant...have some fking respect for the game!

Dumb as bricks.

[Phoenix]

Bird when he was young and in his prime is clearly a better athlete than Jokic. He was more mobile and agile than Jokic.

Whomever made that claim initially must be comparing him to post 90 Bird, or 92 Bird when he was basically walking the court). Jokic isn't anywhere near as fast or nimble as early/mid career Bird.

[tontoz]

They say Luka is the 6'7 point guard version of Bird. Thing is Luka isn't NEARLY as efficient as Bird. Joker has the efficiency, triple double shit, is the best passer at the center spot EVER, and is among the top shooting centers ever. NEARLY a 50-40-90 guy in any given season. So I FOR DAMN SURE see the comparison in a lot of ways. When you combine scoring skillset and passing as a package, Bird was the most skilled SF ever. Jokic is the same among centers.

If Luka gets more efficient, the point guard version of Bird comp would be more apt. Even though I INDEED do see shades of a point guard version of Bird for sure.

For the record Luka's career TS is the same as Birds in spite of his weak foul shooting. I do think he needs to take fewer 3s though. He isn't a good enough shooter to be taking 8 3s per game.

[Phoenix]

For the record Luka's career TS is the same as Birds in spite of his weak foul shooting. I do think he needs to take fewer 3s though. He isn't a good enough shooter to be taking 8 3s per game.

That shows how tricky TS% is and you have to look at the individual categories to get complete context. It's also not an apples to apples based on era and respective defensive rules, plus we haven't seen the downside of Luka's career yet where his efficiency will no doubt tail off as it does for just about everyone else. But yeah, a career 33% three-point shooter shouldn't be taking that many 3's, shouldn't even be taking half that amount, and in a prior era he wouldn't.

[tontoz]

That shows how tricky TS% is and you have to look at the individual categories to get complete context. It's also not an apples to apples based on era and respective defensive rules, plus we haven't seen the downside of Luka's career yet where his efficiency will no doubt tail off as it does for just about everyone else. But yeah, a career 33% three-point shooter shouldn't be taking that many 3's, shouldn't even be taking half that amount, and in a prior era he wouldn't.

If Bird played in this era we can assume that he would take more 3s and his efficiency would be a bit higher.

However when someone says in absolute "Luka isn't NEARLY as efficient as Bird" that really isn't correct. Also Bird's ability as a 3 point shooter gets exaggerated. For his career 37.6% isnt that impressive.

Also Luka is only 22. I dont think it is a reach to think his most efficient seasons are ahead of him. Bird was 23 as a rookie.

[Phoenix]

If Bird played in this era we can assume that Bird would take more 3s and his efficiency would be a bit higher.

However when someone says in absolute "Luka isn't NEARLY as efficient as Bird" that really isn't correct. Also Bird's ability as a 3 point shooter gets exaggerated. For his career 37.6% isnt that impressive.

Yes, Bird is this era would take more 3's and is clearly more of a natural shooter than Luka. The fact that his career 3 point percentage isn't 'impressive' by modern standards is again, era. He came into a league where the 3 was still in his infancy. From 79-88 he averaged 1.7 threes a game, for context someone like Giannis takes twice as many and he's not a shooter by any standard. It's a different league.

It should be noted that the majority of Bird's highest 3point percentages came in the seasons he shot the most volume( 40% on 3 attempts in 87, 41% on 3 attempts in 88, 39% on 3 attempts in 91, 41% on 3 attempts in 92). The obvious conclusion to draw is the more you take 3's the better rhythm over time you get, especially in the case of Larry who as I said was a natural shooter. It makes sense that his 3's % increased when he actually made it a bigger part of his game, versus taking 1-2 attempts per early in his career. All of the 'shooters' from the 80's and 90s like Bird, Rice, Mullin, Ellis, Price, Reggie etc etc would be taking 6 plus 3's a game nowadays and hitting 40% or higher. That's the league we're in, and making the 3 at both a high percentage and volume is par for today's course. All of those I mentioned were better pure shooters than Luka.

[iamgine]

Jokic has been playing on GOAT level. Like, peak MJ/Lebron level. Neither Giannis nor Embiid is close to him.

[Phoenix]

Also Luka is only 22. I dont think it is a reach to think his most efficient seasons are ahead of him. Bird was 23 as a rookie.

That goes without saying, but I'm not talking about the next 7-8 years. I'm talking when he hits mid 30s if he's around that long. For most players their first few seasons and their last few past-prime are the years that knocks points off career stats. But, it's not likely Luka would be this efficient in the 80's nor Larry being a sub 60% TS guy nowadays, if we're just boiling this down purely to that stat.

[Im Still Ballin]

Both players know how to weaponize their passing, which puts pressure on the defense nearly as much as scoring itself.

[tontoz]

That goes without saying, but I'm not talking about the next 7-8 years. I'm talking when he hits mid 30s if he's around that long. For most players their first few seasons and their last few past-prime are the years that knocks points off career stats. But, it's not likely Luka would be this efficient in the 80's nor Larry being a sub 60% TS guy nowadays, if we're just boiling this down purely to that stat.



Age will knock ppg off career stats but it doesn't necessarily knock down efficiency. Frequently older players are playing lesser roles and taking fewer contested shots. Bird's last two seasons were good 3 pt shooting seasons. His problem was that his back was a mess which made him less effective off the dribble.

[bizil]

If Bird played in this era we can assume that he would take more 3s and his efficiency would be a bit higher.

However when someone says in absolute "Luka isn't NEARLY as efficient as Bird" that really isn't correct. Also Bird's ability as a 3 point shooter gets exaggerated. For his career 37.6% isnt that impressive.

Also Luka is only 22. I dont think it is a reach to think his most efficient seasons are ahead of him. Bird was 23 as a rookie.


What the hell are you talking about??? 50-40-90 shooting is the HALLMARK combo when talking about great shooting. Bird PUT THAT SHIT on the map back in the day! And he did it twice in his career. Bird and Nash are the ONLY ONES in league history to do it multiple times. From there, 38% 3 point shooting is a VERY GOOD CLIP shooting the three ball over an entire career! ESPECIALLY for a 6'9 SF-PF type. Point is for THESE REASONS, a Bird-Luka comparison is a BIT OFF. Because Bird was ULTRA EFFICIENT shooting the rock. Luka for his career so far is 46-33-74. While Larry is 50-38-89. BASICALLY as close you can GET to being a 50-40-90 career shooter WITHOUT actually doing it.

Efficiency isn't the BE ALL END ALL of course. BUT YA Luka ISN'T IN BIRD's LEAGUE when it comes to efficiency! Even Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles can see that. Luka is a PHENOMENAL PLAYER! And I actually see the CLOSEST THING to the PG version of Bird in a lot of ways. Jus saying Joker being the 7 foot center version of Bird is an EVEN MORE apt comparison.

In the MJ-Kobe comparison MJ was ULTRA EFFICIENT FG% wise. While Kobe never was. BUT in terms of 3FG% and FT%, they are BASICALLY identical. BOTH shot 33% 3 FG and 84% from the line. So the comparison to each other was STILL hella apt overall. Bird-Doncic ISN'T as apt a comp as MJ-Kobe. Different positions, Bird 2-3 inches taller, and huge gap in efficiency (not TS, talking over FG% shit) are reasons why.

[tontoz]

50/40/90 hasn't been relevant in a long time lol. FG% is mostly irrelevant in today's game. If you take a lot of 3s and shoot them at 40% that is good efficiency but it hurts your FG%.

We aren't in the 90s any more lol.

Luka's career TS% is 57%. Birds career TS is 56.4%. I would assume that Bird's efficiency would be higher in this era due to taking more 3s but it probably wouldn't be that much higher, maybe 2%. I would also assume that Luka's efficiency will improve as he matures.

But saying Luka's efficiency isn't in Bird's league is just nonsense. Math fail.

It is also relevant that Luka has far better handles and is far better at getting to the basket and finishing than Bird was which is probably why his 2pt % is 3% higher.

[Phoenix]

Age will knock ppg off career stats but it doesn't necessarily knock down efficiency. Frequently older players are playing lesser roles and taking fewer contested shots. Bird's last two seasons were good 3 pt shooting seasons. His problem was that his back was a mess which made him less effective off the dribble.

There's alot of notable players whose efficiency dipped if you're inclined to look it up. Maybe not so much in this era because this is a much less physical league and training is better so players will age better. Luka is 23 years old so what his efficiency will be in 10 years is a very far off conversation. Ultimately its way too soon to really discuss Bird and Lukas TS% when ones career is in the books and the other is still in its relative infancy.

[Phoenix]

It is also relevant that Luka has far better handles and is far better at getting to the basket and finishing than Bird was which is probably why his 2pt % is 3% higher.

Yes Luka has a modern handle, but surely you will acknowledge that the conditions for getting into the paint in the 80s and in 2020 are VERY different. Bird in 2020 wouldn't even be the same player we saw( nor would Luka back in 1980), which these types of comparisons rarely take into account. Even if we want to play the game of merely plopping them into the others era like Back to the future, Bird would be a stretch 4 and his game wouldn't be built on breaking his man down off the dribble. He'd be part of some deadly pick and rolls combos, coming off screens, occasionally playing out of the post passing out to shooters all around him. His statline would probably be very close to what we see with Jokic( a few less rebounds). He was doing 10 rebounds a game back when you had centers and PFs camping in the lane, his passing would still be among the best in the league, and he'd probably drop 25-28 during his peak depending on the situation. I can see a prime Bird in 2022 doing 27/11/8 on 60% 50/40/90 pretty easily.

[tontoz]

There's alot of notable players whose efficiency dipped if you're inclined to look it up. Maybe not so much in this era because this is a much less physical league and training is better so players will age better. Luka is 23 years old so what his efficiency will be in 10 years is a very far off conversation. Ultimately its way too soon to really discuss Bird and Lukas TS% when ones career is in the books and the other is still in its relative infancy.



I am not the one who brought up their comparative efficiency. Saying Luka's efficiency is far worse than Bird's is simply wrong.

[Phoenix]

I am not the one who brought up their comparative efficiency. Saying Luka's efficiency is far worse than Bird's is simply wrong.

I didn't say you did. I'm just saying simply quoting TS% between two players 40 years apart in different leagues needs a bit of context. It's no different from trying to argue Wilts numbers in 1960 vs Shaq's in 2000 and acting like they played in the same league.

[tontoz]

I didn't say you did. I'm just saying simply quoting TS% between two players 40 years apart in different leagues needs a bit of context. It's no different from trying to argue Wilts numbers in 1960 vs Shaq's in 2000 and acting like they played in the same league.

When someone says that Bird's efficiency was far better than Luka's i don't need any context at all. That is just wrong.

Now if someone wants to say Bird was a better perimeter shooter than Luka that's fine. If they want to say that Bird would probably be more efficient than Luka in this era that could be legitimately argued.

But there was no context in his statement and none was needed in my response.

[Phoenix]

When someone says that Bird's efficiency was far better than Luka's i don't need any context at all. That is just wrong.



I didn't read his post. I read yours, and responding to the contents of it. What he said has no bearing on what I'm saying to you, because I'm addressing your post. Are you saying I need to read his to understand yours better?

Context is needed for any reasonable discussion about two players doing those numbers 40 years apart. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and just scream out 'they both shot the same percentage!!!' and be done with it, then there's not much point to this conversation other than replying for the sake of doing so. Yes, they both shot 57%. Ignore the completely different rules and era they played cause reasons.

[tontoz]

I didn't read his post. I read yours, and responding to the contents of it. What he said has no bearing on what I'm saying to you, because I'm addressing your post. Are you saying I need to read his to understand yours better?

Context is needed for any reasonable discussion about two players doing those numbers 40 years apart. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and just scream out 'they both shot the same percentage!!!' and be done with it, then there's not much point to this conversation other than replying for the sake of doing so. Yes, they both shot 57%. Ignore the completely different rules and era they played cause reasons.



It is hilarious that you are lecturing me about context but you didn't even read the post i was responding to, which i quoted ffs.

[Phoenix]

It is hilarious that you are lecturing me about context but you didn't even read the post i was responding to, which i quoted ffs.

There's nothing hilarious about it. I skimmed through the thread. Not every post was read. I read yours and responded to the CONTEXT of your post. It didn't require reading another post because yours was self-contained. Now that I've gone back and read the other poster, my reply to you is exactly the same. Yes, they shot the same TS% if you want to be technical about it and the CONTEXT of considering the eras they played in is still the core of my response. Maybe you don't care about context, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in any comparative discussion.

[bizil]

50/40/90 hasn't been relevant in a long time lol. FG% is mostly irrelevant in today's game. If you take a lot of 3s and shoot them at 40% that is good efficiency but it hurts your FG%.

We aren't in the 90s any more lol.

Luka's career TS% is 57%. Birds career TS is 56.4%. I would assume that Bird's efficiency would be higher in this era due to taking more 3s but it probably wouldn't be that much higher, maybe 2%. I would also assume that Luka's efficiency will improve as he matures.

But saying Luka's efficiency isn't in Bird's league is just nonsense. Math fail.

It is also relevant that Luka has far better handles and is far better at getting to the basket and finishing than Bird was which is probably why his 2pt % is 3% higher.

I think what you are failing to REALIZE the 50-40-90 club is a more ELITE CLUB of shooting than that TS% stuff. Malcom Brogdon is the only player in that club who ISN'T HOF material. All the other members are:

Bird
Price
Miller
KD
Kyrie
Nash
Dirk
Steph

That's HELLA ELITE COMPANY! If I could choose, I would rather be in THIS CLUB than the TS% THERE IS NO TS% club!! It's an new age analytic formula. And provides a certain context. But if you hit the 50-40-90 club, THAT MEANS AS OF NOW you are likely an HOF caliber player virtually ALL THE TIME! With Brogdon being the exception. Luka in THIS SENSE isn't close to Bird's level of efficiency! In terms of NON-ANALYTIC BS, this is THE CLUB to be in if you are considered a WELL ROUNDED SHARPSHOOTER!

[tontoz]

There's nothing hilarious about it. I skimmed through the thread. Not every post was read. I read yours and responded to the CONTEXT of your post. It didn't require reading another post because yours was self-contained. Now that I've gone back and read the other poster, my reply to you is exactly the same. Yes, they shot the same TS% if you want to be technical about it and the CONTEXT of considering the eras they played in is still the core of my response. Maybe you don't care about context, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in any comparative discussion.


What you are obviously missing is that my post was simply stating facts which aren't debatable. The facts themselves don't need any context. I am absolutely certain that he wasn't aware that their actually efficiency stats were the same.

[tontoz]

I think what you are failing to REALIZE the 50-40-90 club is a more ELITE CLUB of shooting than that TS% stuff. Malcom Brogdon is the only player in that club who ISN'T HOF material. All the other members are:

Bird
Price
Miller
KD
Kyrie
Nash
Dirk
Steph

That's HELLA ELITE COMPANY! If I could choose, I would rather be in THIS CLUB than the TS% THERE IS NO TS% club!! It's an new age analytic formula. And provides a certain context. But if you hit the 50-40-90 club, THAT MEANS AS OF NOW you are likely an HOF caliber player virtually ALL THE TIME! With Brogdon being the exception. Luka in THIS SENSE isn't close to Bird's level of efficiency! In terms of NON-ANALYTIC BS, this is THE CLUB to be in if you are considered a WELL ROUNDED SHARPSHOOTER!


Not again with the 50/40/90 nonsense.

It is a lot easier to get into that club when you are taking only 2 or 3 three pointers per game.

Curry is the best shooter in league history by a wide margin but only shot 50% from the field once in spite of shooting far above 50% on 2s several times.

[NBAGOAT]

I think what you are failing to REALIZE the 50-40-90 club is a more ELITE CLUB of shooting than that TS% stuff. Malcom Brogdon is the only player in that club who ISN'T HOF material. All the other members are:

Bird
Price
Miller
KD
Kyrie
Nash
Dirk
Steph

That's HELLA ELITE COMPANY! If I could choose, I would rather be in THIS CLUB than the TS% THERE IS NO TS% club!! It's an new age analytic formula. And provides a certain context. But if you hit the 50-40-90 club, THAT MEANS AS OF NOW you are likely an HOF caliber player virtually ALL THE TIME! With Brogdon being the exception. Luka in THIS SENSE isn't close to Bird's level of efficiency! In terms of NON-ANALYTIC BS, this is THE CLUB to be in if you are considered a WELL ROUNDED SHARPSHOOTER!

If you’re looking at how good a shooter sure, 50/40/90 can provide that context though badly. TS% is the gold standard right now for evaluating scoring efficiency. That’s what really matters when we’re talking about how good someone is. You can watch a few games and know who’s the best shooter on a team. As someone else replied to you, 50/40/90 is going be a lot harder to hit because of how many 3s most guys take.

Easy counter example, Chris Paul has come a lot closer to 50/40/90 even not looking at the 90 part. This is just because klay takes way more 3s so his fg% is lower. Obviously klay is a better shooter. If you’re going look at shooting efficiency at least use efg% or 2pt fg%

[Phoenix]

What you are obviously missing is that my post was simply stating facts which aren't debatable. The facts themselves don't need any context. I am absolutely certain that he wasn't aware that their actually efficiency stats were the same.

What you're missing is that, even if you want to trumpet the 'factual' nature of stats.....which isn't being debated for the record.....stats on a page tell 'what', not 'how'....and if we're going to act like 'how' no longer matters then we may as well shut down the board. I'm aware Bird and Luka both shot 57% TS for their career. Google tells you that within 30 seconds. I said the eras they played in should be taken into consideration when comparing stats, and looking at the individual numbers to see how they arrived at TS% but meh, who gives a shit about any of that is pretty much your position.

[Phoenix]

Bird and Luka took virtually the same number of shots per game over their career. Bird shot 50%, Luka shoots 46% from the field. From the line, Bird shot 89% on 5, Luka 74% on 8 attempts. But Luka shooting an exponentially higher volume of 3's can blend the overall TS% numbers into being equal on a page.

Yes, they both shot 57% TS. Fukk anything else and let's just quote numbers and that's the end of the conversation.

[Phoenix]

TS% is the gold standard right now for evaluating scoring efficiency. T

Which can be problematic when you got guys shooting 44% from the field with 60% TS because of 3's and FTs. TS% tells us that Harden is a much more efficient scorer than MJ despite not shooting remotely as well from the field overall, on top of drastically different defensive rules. Shooting a low percentage from the field can be folded into high attempts of 3's and FTs and you get an elite TS%.

But I'm learning today that none of that shit matters. Today's perimeter guys play under rules that are going to produce results that shit on past eras. Trae Young did numbers in his 2nd year that makes peak Isiah look like a scrub.

[tontoz]

What you're missing is that, even if you want to trumpet the 'factual' nature of stats.....which isn't being debated for the record.....stats on a page tell 'what', not 'how'....and if we're going to act like 'how' no longer matters then we may as well shut down the board. I'm aware Bird and Luka both shot 57% TS for their career. Google tells you that within 30 seconds. I said the eras they played in should be taken into consideration when comparing stats, and looking at the individual numbers to see how they arrived at TS% but meh, who gives a shit about any of that is pretty much your position.

Are you an idiot or do you just do good impressions?

Facts by themselves dont need context. The only time context is needed is when you are trying to draw conclusions from those facts. This is not complex.

I was simply pointing out a fact that i am sure he wasn't aware of. The only conclusion that is even relevant is whether or not Bird was far more efficient than Luka which is clearly no.

I have some more facts. Birds two most efficient seasons were in his 30s. His last two seasons were more efficient than his first two in spite of the FACTS that he was 23 as a rookie and was struggling was a bad back his last two seasons.


Are you trying to argue that Bird was a far more efficient than Luka? If so let's see your argument. Otherwise F off.

[Phoenix]

Are you an idiot or do you just do good impressions?

Facts by themselves dont need context. The only time context is needed is when you are trying to draw conclusions from those facts. This is not complex.

I was simply pointing out a fact that i am sure he wasn't aware of. The only conclusion that is even relevant is whether or not Bird was far more efficient than Luka which is clearly no.

I have some more facts. Birds two most efficient seasons were in his 30s. His last two seasons were more efficient than his first two in spite of the FACTS that he was 23 as a rookie and was struggling was a bad back his last two seasons.


Are you trying to argue that Bird was a far more efficient than Luka? If so let's see your argument. Otherwise F off.

LMAO, facts don't need context when having a discussion. This dude....

Are YOU an idiot? At NO point have I said BIRD WAS MORE EFFIECIENT THAN LUKA. LITERALLY all I said from the beginning that you have to consider the leagues they played in when comparing them. THAT'S IT. I NEVER argued their TS% wasn't the same. You can be a complete moron and ignore that they played in different eras. But that matters, and in 75 years of basketball, how stats were achieved across that period doesn't cease to be a consideration because you want to stick your fingers in your ears.

But yeah, I'm going to fukk off now. Kindly do the same.

[1987_Lakers]

Are you trying to argue that Bird was a far more efficient than Luka? If so let's see your argument. Otherwise F off.

I mean, if you compare their TS% and the league average in TS% in the eras they played, I'm sure Bird comes out on top in terms of efficiency.


Luka has always hovered around average to above average in TS% compared to the rest of the league.

Bird had a 4 year stretch where his TS% was around 60%, while the league average was under 55%.

TS% in the 80's was lower than it was today because teams didn't shoot 3s. Put Bird in today's league and I'm sure his TS% would be higher than Luka's. As great as Luka is, Bird is simply a better shooter.

[tontoz]

LMAO, facts don't need context when having a discussion.

Are YOU an idiot? At NO point have I said BIRD WAS MORE EFFIECIENT THAN LUKA. You can be a complete moron and ignore that they played in different eras. But that matters, and in 75 years of basketball, how stats were achieved across that period doesn't cease to be a consideration because you want to stick your fingers in your ears.

But yeah, I'm going to fukk off now. Kindly do the same.



Bye. And the next time you decide to butt into the middle of a conversation i suggest you actually read the conversation first to get CONTEXT.

[Phoenix]

Bye. And the next time you decide to butt into the middle of a conversation i suggest you actually read the conversation first to get CONTEXT.

I'll do what the fukk I want. Nothing about my opinion changes reading Bizil's posts.

Bye.

[tontoz]

I mean, if you compare their TS% and the league average in TS% in the eras they played, I'm sure Bird comes out on top in terms of efficiency.


Luka has always hovered around average to above average in TS% compared to the rest of the league.

Bird had a 4 year stretch where his TS% around around 60, while the league averaged was under 55%.

TS% in the 80's was lower than it was today because teams didn't shoot 3s. Put Bird in today's league and I'm sure his TS% would be higher than Luka's. As great as Luka is, Bird is simply a better shooter.

Now go look at Birds first 4 years relative to the league average and get back to me. And yes i agree that Bird is a better shooter.

[tontoz]

I'll do what the fukk I want. Nothing about my opinion changes reading Bizil's posts.

Bye.

Reading obviously isn't your strong suit.

[Phoenix]

I mean, if you compare their TS% and the league average in TS% in the eras they played, I'm sure Bird comes out on top in terms of efficiency.


Luka has always hovered around average to above average in TS% compared to the rest of the league.

Bird had a 4 year stretch where his TS% around around 60%, while the league averaged was under 55%.

TS% in the 80's was lower than it was today because teams didn't shoot 3s. Put Bird in today's league and I'm sure his TS% would be higher than Luka's. As great as Luka is, Bird is simply a better shooter.

Oh so like.....context? Shhhhhhhh....not in this thread.

[Phoenix]

Reading obviously isn't your strong suit.

Arguing with reason isn't yours.

We done, or you need another 'last word' post in ?

[tontoz]

Arguing with reason isn't yours.

We done, or you need another 'last word' post in ?


Pretty funny coming from a guy who just said he was going to F off.

[Phoenix]

Pretty funny coming from a guy who just said he was going to F off.

And even funnier coming from a guy who just said bye three replies ago.

[tontoz]

And even funnier coming from a guy who just said bye three replies ago.

Because i thought you were leaving :roll:

You really aren't very good at this.

[Phoenix]

Because i thought you were leaving :roll:

You really aren't very good at this.

And then I decided to stick around because where's the fun otherwise?That's what 'doing what the fukk I want' means.

You arent very good at just dropping it, but I guess I'm not either. Whoops....so what do we do now?

[tontoz]

Let's look at a comparison of Birds first 4 years compared to Luka:

Bird
53.8%
52.8%
55.7%
56.1%

Luka
54.5%
58.5%
58.7%
55.9%

So Bird's average was 54.6% and Luka's was 56.9%. How much should we adjust for eras? IMO a fair number would be 3-4% but i am not basing that off of anything concrete, just experience watching the league.

So i would say Bird was marginally more efficient than Luka, relative to his peers, during their first four years. Of course this isn't really relevant to the my original point but this seemed to be the discussion that my new friend wanted to have.

As a side note my biggest question with Bird is how good would he have been if he hadn't f'd up his finger playing softball before he turned pro? It was messed up pretty badly and to this day he can't straighten it. That is a big problem for a guy to have on his shooting hand. He said he was a better shooter in college.

[bizil]

If you’re looking at how good a shooter sure, 50/40/90 can provide that context though badly. TS% is the gold standard right now for evaluating scoring efficiency. That’s what really matters when we’re talking about how good someone is. You can watch a few games and know who’s the best shooter on a team. As someone else replied to you, 50/40/90 is going be a lot harder to hit because of how many 3s most guys take.

Easy counter example, Chris Paul has come a lot closer to 50/40/90 even not looking at the 90 part. This is just because klay takes way more 3s so his fg% is lower. Obviously klay is a better shooter. If you’re going look at shooting efficiency at least use efg% or 2pt fg%

I think you guys are missing MY POINT. You guys gotta read MY POSTS in full context to know what I'm talking about. This whole thing started with the Joker and Bird comp. I said Joker is the CLOSEST THING we've seen to Bird in terms of the center position. I pointed out the Joker LEGIT is elite FG% wise, FT% wise, and even 3point% wise for a center. He had that IN COMMON with Bird. That's where the 50-40-90 stuff comes in. Luka's FT% and 3FG% BOTH leave a lot to be desired. That is TOTALLY OPPOSITE of Bird in those senses. CAN'T be ignored either. BUT Luka does shot 46% from the field. Which is a GOOD CLIP for perimeter player for sure. I get TS% is important. But OLD SCHOOL FG%, FT%, and 3FG% STILL is important too.

And I'm no FOOL! I know Klay is a better shooter than CP3! BUT the fact CP3 has come close to a 50-40-90 shooter shows he's HELLA EFFICIENT from those areas. And knows where to FOCUS his scoring skillset at. So that should be applauded too. Just sayin Luka shooting 46-33-72 is very UNBIRD like! That's all I was saying. He's not GREAT in any of those areas. In THAT context! And in THAT SENSE, it shows Bird was on a COMPLETELY different level that Luka in THAT REGARD! I didn't MENTION TS% for a REASON! Because I wasn't focusing on that in my posts.

[tontoz]

That is faulty reasoning.

Luka shoots 54.4% on 2s for his career. In his first 4 years bird shot 49.9% on 2s. That is a 4.5% gap which is pretty big, especially considering most shots are 2s.

TS takes all shots into account, all areas and the volume in those areas.

[bizil]

I'm not knocking TS%. I've been talking about 50-40-90. And in that package, Luka ISN'T close to Bird. That's what my posts have been focused on. Never said it was the be all end all. But when you are compared so much to Bird, that's a factor. Jus saying Luka FT% and 3FG% percentage wise is very UNBIRD like. His OVERALL FG% hasn't been an issue BECAUSE of his 2FG%.

[tontoz]

I'm not knocking TS%. I've been talking about 50-40-90. And in that package, Luka ISN'T close to Bird. That's what my posts have been focused on. Never said it was the be all end all. But when you are compared so much to Bird, that's a factor. Jus saying Luka FT% and 3FG% percentage wise is very UNBIRD like. His OVERALL FG% hasn't been an issue BECAUSE of his 2FG%.

FG% is a garbage stat for guys who shoot 3s.

If a guy shoot 5 of 10 without shooting 3s then his fg% is 50% and scored 10 pts.

If a guy shoots all 3s and shoots 4 of 10 his FG% is 40% and he scored 12 points.

Time to let the 90s go

[bizil]

FG% is a garbage stat for guys who shoot 3s.

If a guy shoot 5 of 10 without shooting 3s then his fg% is 50% and scored 10 pts.

If a guy shoots all 3s and shoots 4 of 10 his FG% is 40% and he scored 12 points.

Time to let the 90s go

Well Luka's three point percentage STILL leaves a lot to be desired. And his FT% as well. I've NEVER BEEN ONE to say shooting percentages is be all end all shit! BUT when making comparisons among the greats, that plays into it.

[tontoz]

Well Luka's three point percentage STILL leaves a lot to be desired. And his FT% as well. I've NEVER BEEN ONE to say shooting percentages is be all end all shit! BUT when making comparisons among the greats, that plays into it.


Well the fact is that Luka overall shot better than Bird did during his first 4 years. Most of their shots were 2s and Luka shot much better on 2s.

[BigShotBob]

Well the fact is that Luka overall shot better than Bird did during his first 4 years. Most of their shots were 2s and Luka shot much better on 2s.

Check the percentage by distance

[tanibanana]

Slap in the face to all those idiots claiming you have to be very athletic to survive in the modern era
One of many reasons why I root for Jokic. Kids this days talk trash a lot about Bird being unathletic and would not make great in current NBA.

[Champ]

Well the fact is that Luka overall shot better than Bird did during his first 4 years. Most of their shots were 2s and Luka shot much better on 2s.

You have to understand that Bird's first coach, Bill Fitch, like many others of his generation, openly despised the three and discouraged his team from taking them. Moreover, unlike today, offensive sets during the early stages of the three's existence were not designed around the shot itself - the exception being last second attempts to tie the game. Most threes from the period were contested, rushed, or late game desparation attempts.

If a team was down only two, you'd rarely see one taking a three instead of opting for an open two or trying to draw a foul. That alone speaks volumes about how much the approach to the three has changed since the early days.

It's impossible to know how deadly a three point shooter Bird would've been in today's era of drive and kick with wide open perimeter shots taken within the flow of the offense, but without a doubt his percentages would've been higher. Same goes for other sharpshooters from that time (Ellis, Price, Hodges, Brown, etc.).

Also, we should stop comparing today's "handles" with those of the past - the rules are completely different regarding ball handling and what you're allowed to do these days.

[Champ]

Jokic is the CLOSEST THING we've seen to a 7 foot center version of Bird as of now. BEFORE Jokic, that type of center NEVER existed. It's not an MJ-Kobe comparison. Where they play the same position, are about the same size, both freak athletes, etc. Bird was a 6'9-6'10 SF-PF type. BUT when u watch Jokic play, he INDEED is the closest we've seen to the center version of Bird.

They say Luka is the 6'7 point guard version of Bird. Thing is Luka isn't NEARLY as efficient as Bird. Joker has the efficiency, triple double shit, is the best passer at the center spot EVER, and is among the top shooting centers ever. NEARLY a 50-40-90 guy in any given season. So I FOR DAMN SURE see the comparison in a lot of ways. When you combine scoring skillset and passing as a package, Bird was the most skilled SF ever. Jokic is the same among centers.

I wouldn't take it as far as the OP did though. Bird and Magic BASICALLY are the godfathers of positionless basketball. AT LEAST offensively. Magic could LEGIT play PG to PF and even at times center. And I'M SURE Bird could have played SG to C. Not sure about PG due to handles and pace. BUT he could pass better than most PG's. Boston just NEVER exploited his positional versatility. Jokic ISN'T capable of doing that. He's an INSANELY skilled center for sure. But he's NOT a postionless type of 7 footer. Like a Giannis or KG.

But among the perimeter players, KD is like a mix of T Mac, Bird, Gervin, and McAdoo. The Bird part is being a 50-40-90 sharpshooter while averaging 27-30 PPG every season. KD just doesn't have the triple double bag Bird had. Or the passing ability. That's why it goes back to Joker being the CLOSEST THING to Bird as of now. EVEN THOUGH he plays center. If Luka gets more efficient, the point guard version of Bird comp would be more apt. Even though I INDEED do see shades of a point guard version of Bird for sure.

Nice post.

[tontoz]

You have to understand that Bird's first coach, Bill Fitch, like many others of his generation, openly despised the three and discouraged his team from taking them. Moreover, unlike today, offensive sets during the early stages of the three's existence were not designed around the shot itself - the exception being last second attempts to tie the game. Most threes from the period were contested, rushed, or late game desparation attempts.

If a team was down only two, you'd rarely see one taking a three instead of opting for an open two or trying to draw a foul. That alone speaks volumes about how much the approach to the three has changed since the early days.

It's impossible to know how deadly a three point shooter Bird would've been in today's era of drive and kick with wide open perimeter shots taken within the flow of the offense, but without a doubt his percentages would've been higher. Same goes for other sharpshooters from that time (Ellis, Price, Hodges, Brown, etc.).

Also, we should stop comparing today's "handles" with those of the past - the rules are completely different regarding ball handling and what you're allowed to do these days.


I watched Bird in college. I am well aware of the difference in eras. Luka is an elite ball handler even by todays standards. He can get by anyone 1 on 1 off the dribble which allows him to get a lot of easy looks inside.

Bird got past guys using his shot fake, which looked exactly like his actual shot. But he was never that crafty with this dribble.

[HoopsNY]

You have to understand that Bird's first coach, Bill Fitch, like many others of his generation, openly despised the three and discouraged his team from taking them. Moreover, unlike today, offensive sets during the early stages of the three's existence were not designed around the shot itself - the exception being last second attempts to tie the game. Most threes from the period were contested, rushed, or late game desparation attempts.

If a team was down only two, you'd rarely see one taking a three instead of opting for an open two or trying to draw a foul. That alone speaks volumes about how much the approach to the three has changed since the early days.

It's impossible to know how deadly a three point shooter Bird would've been in today's era of drive and kick with wide open perimeter shots taken within the flow of the offense, but without a doubt his percentages would've been higher. Same goes for other sharpshooters from that time (Ellis, Price, Hodges, Brown, etc.).

Also, we should stop comparing today's "handles" with those of the past - the rules are completely different regarding ball handling and what you're allowed to do these days.

Excellent comment

[999Guy]

Want to revisit this. If you disagree, what does it feel like he is?

[ArbitraryWater]

if we give jokic the mvp what is that teaching the young black kids growing up? that it is ok for white males to win mvp? we made that mistake with nash lets not make that mistake again


:oldlol:

[ShawkFactory]

Offensively Bird was kind of a hybrid of Jokic and Dirk. Slightly shorter than both obviously and not nearly as strong as Jokic but a better first step than either.

Jokic doesn't hunt jumpers like Bird did, nor is he going to get to the line at the same rate.

[Jasper]

I have heard that the Joker is the smartest player in the NBA

[Im Still Ballin]

Want to revisit this. If you disagree, what does it feel like he is?

Bird + Dirk + McHale.

The Larry comparison is obvious; the Dirk influence is clearly there; he's got McHale-like footwork and touch in the paint.

[Lebron23]

"Nikola Jokic is like a 7 foot Larry Bird. He is indeed the best Center or best player in the NBA today"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlA9ziVCYq0

[sbw19]

He's the greatest stat-stuffer who never cared about stats