Somebody help me explain this difference between prime Dwight and other great players

[Im Still Ballin]

People tell me guys like Prime Minnesota KG, Embiid, and Jokic are way better than prime Dwight. That it isn't close between them. But there's just one problem that I can't quite wrap my head around.

If those guys were SO much better than Howard, why isn't it shown in the team results? The general response I'd expect is that Dwight had stronger supporting casts and a superior game plan/coaching. But I'm not sure I buy this.

I can't say that Jokic and Embiid had worse supporting casts than Howard. In fact, I think they had/have stronger ones. Garnett has the best argument here, but is that enough to completely explain the difference in team performance?

As far as game plan, I think this is just a way to not give Dwight the credit that other players get for their team's success. Orlando's drive-and-kick, three-point shooting, small-ball approach doesn't work without him. You remove Howard from that team and I'm not sure they'd make the playoffs in the East. Orlando was 8-14 without Dwight from 2008 to 2012 and completely fell off when he left the team.

And on the topic of injuries, isn't durability a feature of a player? Just like conditioning and motor? Poor availability makes a player worse, doesn't it? Less valuable?

I'm not saying Dwight is better than any of these guys. I'm just saying it's a hell of a lot closer than people think. I could make strong arguments for Howard over those guys. I just don't like when people use the "and it isn't close" hyperbole.


Philadelphia 2017-2018:
- 52-30 W/L (Expected W/L = 53-29 [5th out of 30])
- 4.30 SRS (5th out of 30)
- Embiid missed 19 games
- JJ Redick missed 12 games

Philadelphia 2018-2019:
- 51-31 W/L (Expected W/L = 48-34 [11th out of 30])
- 2.25 SRS (11th out of 30)
- Embiid missed 18 games
- Covington and Saric traded for Jimmy Butler and Tobias Harris

Philadelphia 2019-2020:
- 43-30 W/L (Expected W/L = 42-31 [10th out of 30])
- 2.25 SRS (12th out of 30)
- Embiid missed 22 games
- Simmons missed 16 games

Philadelphia 2020-2021:
- 49-23 W/L (Expected W/L = 48-24 [4th out of 30])
- 5.28 SRS (5th out of 30)
- Embiid missed 21 games
- Simmons missed 14 games
- Tobias missed 10 games

Philadelphia 2021-2022:
- 51-31 W/L (Expected W/L = 48-34 [9th out of 30])
- 2.57 SRS (9th out of 30)
- Embiid missed 14 games
- Simmons traded for Harden

Philadelphia 2022-2023:
- 54-28 W/L (Expected W/L = 52-30 [3rd out of 30])
- 4.37 SRS (3rd out of 30)
- Embiid missed 16 games
- Harden missed 24 games
- Maxey missed 22 games


Denver 2018-2019:
- 54-28 W/L (Expected W/L = 51-31 [8th out of 30])
- 4.19 SRS (7th out of 30)

Denver 2019-2020:
- 46-27 W/L (Expected W/L = 41-32 [11th out of 30])
- 2.35 SRS (10th out of 30)
- Jamal missed 14 games
- Barton missed 15 games
- Millsap missed 22 games

Denver 2020-2021:
- 47-25 W/L (Expected W/L = 47-25 [6th out of 30])
- 4.82 SRS (6th out of 30)
- Jamal missed 24 games
- MPJr missed 11 games

Denver 2022-2023:
- 53-29 W/L (Expected W/L = 49-33 [6th out of 30])
- 3.04 SRS (6th out of 30)
- Jokic missed 13 games
- Jamal missed 17 games
- MPJr missed 20 games
- Gordon missed 14 games


Minnesota 1999-2000:
- 50-32 W/L (Expected W/L = 48-34 [10th out of 29])
- 2.67 SRS (9th out of 29)
- Terrell Brandon missed 11 games

Minnesota 2000-2001:
- 47-35 W/L (Expected W/L = 45-37 [15th out of 29])
- 1.81 SRS (12th out of 29)

Minnesota 2001-2002:
- 50-32 W/L (Expected W/L = 51-31 [6th out of 29])
- 3.58 SRS (6th out of 29)
- Terrell Brandon retired - missed 50 games

Minnesota 2002-2003:
- 51-32 W/L (Expected W/L = 47-35 [12th out of 29])
- 2.46 SRS (10th out of 29)
- Wally missed 30 games

Minnesota 2003-2004:
- 58-24 W/L (Expected W/L = 57-25 [4th out of 29])
- 5.86 SRS (2nd out of 29)
- Wally missed 54 games


Orlando 2007-2008:
- 52-30 W/L (Expected W/L = 56-26 [6th out of 30])
- 4.79 SRS (9th out of 30)
- Jameer missed 13 games

Orlando 2008-2009:
- 59-23 W/L (Expected W/L = 59-23 [4th out of 30])
- 6.48 SRS (4th out of 30)
- Jameer missed 40 games

Orlando 2009-2010:
- 59-23 W/L (Expected W/L = 61-21 [1st out of 30])
- 7.12 SRS (1st out of 30)
- Jameer missed 17 games
- Rashard missed 10 games

Orlando 2010-2011:
- 52-30 W/L (Expected W/L = 56-26 [5th out of 30])
- 4.92 SRS (5th out of 30)
- Rashard and Carter traded for Hedo and Arenas

[Im Still Ballin]

Individual playoff performances of top bigs:


Dwight Howard '08-'11 Playoffs: (HEAVES REMOVED)

- 53 games
- 20.2 ppg, 14.3 rpg, 1.4 apg, 0.8 spg, 2.9 bpg, 3.5 topg
- 60.6% FG, 59.6% FT, 62.6% TS, 24.2% usage rate

Joel Embiid '18-'23 Playoffss:

- 53 games
- 24.0 ppg, 10.9 rpg, 2.8 apg, 0.8 spg, 1.8 bpg, 3.6 topg
- 46.1% FG, 82.3% FT, 57.9% TS, 31.0% usage rate

Nikola Jokic '19-'23 Playoffs:

- 68 games
- 27.5 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 7.3 apg, 1.0 spg, 0.9 bpg, 3.2 topg
- 52.8% FG, 82.6% FT, 61.4% TS, 30.4% usage rate

Anthony Davis '15-'23 Playoffs:

- 55 games
- 25.9 ppg, 11.4 rpg, 2.7 apg, 1.3 spg, 2.2 bpg, 2.3 topg
- 53.3% FG, 84.1% FT, 61.8% TS, 27.4% usage rate

Kevin Garnett '00-'04 Playoffs: (HEAVES REMOVED)

- 35 games
- 23.7 ppg, 14.4 rpg, 5.4 apg, 1.4 spg, 1.9 bpg, 3.5 topg
- 46.0% FG, 75.9% FT, 51.85% TS, 28.7% usage rate

Tim Duncan '98-'07 Playoffs:

- 138 games
- 23.8 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 3.5 apg, 0.7 spg, 2.8 bpg, 3.2 topg
- 50.7% FG, 69.7% FT, 56.0% TS, 28.9% usage rate

[Jimmy Rustler]

Dwight not making the NBA's top 75 of all time is still the most egregious snub.

[SouBeachTalents]

It's time to remove Jokic from this discussion. I know some posters here think it's close, but that ship has honestly already sailed, and barring some catastrophic injury the disparity between the two of them will only grow more lopsided with time. Jokic's on the trajectory for Hakeem/Duncan/Shaq territory now.

As for the others mentioned, those are definitely debatable. Personally, I'd rather have KG than Dwight, especially in today's era, much more versatile player, and never had a legitimate supporting cast in Minnesota. I seriously doubt Dwight does any better in his place.

Embiid to me is fools gold, will put up monster regular season numbers, even snag an MVP, but has consistently underperformed and fallen short of expectation in the playoffs. I'm very confident that Dwight would've led Philly to the conference finals at least once by now.

You mentioned AD in the 2nd post, while I think AD is definitely the more talented player, he just frankly has never proven anything without LeBron. Did jack shit in New Orleans, and even with LeBron at 38 failed to truly take over the reigns of the team. His latest playoff run was legitimately the most maddingly inconsistent I can recall, he'd look like the BITW one game, put up 15 ppg on 6/15 the next.

My question for you OP, do you think KG or AD is leading that Orlando team to the Finals in '09 in Dwight's place? I'm assuming you, and most non Philly fans, would agree that Embiid doesn't.

[Axe]

So playoff howard basically leads them in terms of fg%, at least based on specific data shown above.

Interesting.

[iamgine]

OP is correct in saying Dwight's teammates were not better than Embiid or Jokic. But the reason for Orlando's 50+ regular season wins seasons was not because Dwight was close/equal/better than Embiid/Jokic/Garnett. It's due to the league was not very good during those seasons.

[Im Still Ballin]

It's time to remove Jokic from this discussion. I know some posters here think it's close, but that ship has honestly already sailed, and barring some catastrophic injury the disparity between the two of them will only grow more lopsided with time. Jokic's on the trajectory for Hakeem/Duncan/Shaq territory now.

As for the others mentioned, those are definitely debatable. Personally, I'd rather have KG than Dwight, especially in today's era, much more versatile player, and never had a legitimate supporting cast in Minnesota. I seriously doubt Dwight does any better in his place.

Embiid to me is fools gold, will put up monster regular season numbers, even snag an MVP, but has consistently underperformed and fallen short of expectation in the playoffs. I'm very confident that Dwight would've led Philly to the conference finals at least once by now.

You mentioned AD in the 2nd post, while I think AD is definitely the more talented player, he just frankly has never proven anything without LeBron. Did jack shit in New Orleans, and even with LeBron at 38 failed to truly take over the reigns of the team. His latest playoff run was legitimately the most maddingly inconsistent I can recall, he'd look like the BITW one game, put up 15 ppg on 6/15 the next.

My question for you OP, do you think KG or AD is leading that Orlando team to the Finals in '09 in Dwight's place? I'm assuming you, and most non Philly fans, would agree that Embiid doesn't.

That's such a tough question, isn't it? KG could probably do it. I imagine you start Gortat, KG plays PF, and you move one of Hedo/Rashard to the bench. I just don't know because Howard and Garnett are such different types of players.

As for AD? I don't think so. It could happen... but I doubt it. I just don't trust his motor and durability. He probably plays PF. Hard to say. Conditioning, motor, and durability make me doubt Embiid as well.

So hard to know. The league is so radically different today compared to when Dwight was in his Orlando prime.


OP is correct in saying Dwight's teammates were not better than Embiid or Jokic. But the reason for Orlando's 50+ regular season wins seasons was not because Dwight was close/equal/better than Embiid/Jokic/Garnett. It's due to the league was not very good during those seasons.

I'm trying to understand this logic. Are you saying the talent of the league as a whole was less? Was it weaker in the early '00s? What about the '90s? Pre-expansion era? Do these teams' performance and accomplishments not count?

[iamgine]

I'm trying to understand this logic. Are you saying the talent of the league as a whole was less? Was it weaker in the early '00s? What about the '90s? Pre-expansion era? Do these teams' performance and accomplishments not count?

It's weaker when Dwight's Orlando won 50+ games.

[Im Still Ballin]

It's weaker when Dwight's Orlando won 50+ games.

And is that a trend that holds true the further back you go until the expansion era? Is winning 60 games in the 2020s like winning 50 games in the 2000s? And what about SRS? Simple rating system/strength of schedule

[iamgine]

And is that a trend that holds true the further back you go until the expansion era? Is winning 60 games in the 2020s like winning 50 games in the 2000s? And what about SRS? Simple rating system/strength of schedule

I'm talking only about those seasons.

[PP34Deuce]

Jokic is better. Kg is a better fit.

Dwight is better than embiid. Dwight had the ability to pass out a double team effectively..something AD and Embiid struggle with

[Im Still Ballin]

Orlando 2008-2011:

- 55.5 wins 26.5 losses
- 5.83 SRS

Denver 2019-2023 (2022 not included)

- 53.05 wins 28.95 losses
- 3.6 SRS

[Carbine]

If only Barkley, Malone, Nash, etc were considered to have virtually equal team results as the guys who won a title as best player.

It doesn't work that way. Dwight played like absolute dog shit in his finals, it ranks right up there with any non Lebron vs Dallas bad series for a superstar in the finals of the last two decades.

[Im Still Ballin]

If only Barkley, Malone, Nash, etc were considered to have virtually equal team results as the guys who won a title as best player.

It doesn't work that way. Dwight played like absolute dog shit in his finals, it ranks right up there with any non Lebron vs Dallas bad series for a superstar in the finals of the last two decades.

So we should just ignore everything because a championship wasn't won? Those guys you listed are all great players. All three of them could have won championships in the right circumstance. Things just didn't go their way. It doesn't make them any less than what they were.

Dwight did rebound and defend fantastically. 15 rpg and 4 bpg. Broke an NBA Finals record. And he didn't take many shots at all; not like he shot them out of it. He just didn't score as much as you'd want him. Still, 15 ppg on like 56% TS is better than LeBron's 2007 Finals and Kobe's 2004.

All great players have bad series. Jokic's 2020 WCF and 2021 WCSF were disappointing. Doesn't mean we should ignore the whole, the entire body of work.

[Overdrive]

So we should just ignore everything because a championship wasn't won? Those guys you listed are all great players. All three of them could have won championships in the right circumstance. Things just didn't go their way. It doesn't make them any less than what they were.

Dwight did rebound and defend fantastically. 15 rpg and 4 bpg. Broke an NBA Finals record. And he didn't take many shots at all; not like he shot them out of it. He just didn't score as much as you'd want him. Still, 15 ppg on like 56% TS is better than LeBron's 2007 Finals and Kobe's 2004.

All great players have bad series. Jokic's 2020 WCF and 2021 WCSF were disappointing. Doesn't mean we should ignore the whole, the entire body of work.

All great players have bad series, but the greatest ones come back to win after a disappointment. Howard didn't do that. He quit his taylormade team during an injury to play for another guy and never really recovered from both the injury and not being the man anymore.

And that's the other point. Orlando was taylormade for his skillset. Jokic doesn't need a team that's set up for him. Garnett, idk, Embiid is yet to be seen.

[John8204]

The answer is Dwight's decline started at 27 and he was a bench player by 33. The notion of him being a top player of all-time really comes down to the work. He's going to make the Hall of Fame but realistically he's one of the worst centers to make the Hall. You compare him to guys that player right before him and right after him but one to one he doesn't measure up to those guys(maybe Embiid).

Howard is on the level of Jack Sikma, Dan Issell, Ralph Sampson, Yao Ming, and Arvydas Sabonis

[Im Still Ballin]

The answer is Dwight's decline started at 27 and he was a bench player by 33. The notion of him being a top player of all-time really comes down to the work. He's going to make the Hall of Fame but realistically he's one of the worst centers to make the Hall. You compare him to guys that player right before him and right after him but one to one he doesn't measure up to those guys(maybe Embiid).

Howard is on the level of Jack Sikma, Dan Issell, Ralph Sampson, Yao Ming, and Arvydas Sabonis

That's great but this thread is about prime Dwight.

[John8204]

That's great but this thread is about prime Dwight.

You want to compare Dwight to the all-time greats who are first ballot Hall of Famers but that's not Dwight. People don't just look at a players best years but the career in total and when a guy's productivity falls off a cliff at an early age you can't just sit back and say well his potential was up there.

[Overdrive]

The answer is Dwight's decline started at 27 and he was a bench player by 33. The notion of him being a top player of all-time really comes down to the work. He's going to make the Hall of Fame but realistically he's one of the worst centers to make the Hall. You compare him to guys that player right before him and right after him but one to one he doesn't measure up to those guys(maybe Embiid).

Howard is on the level of Jack Sikma, Dan Issell, Ralph Sampson, Yao Ming, and Arvydas Sabonis

No he isn't on their level. He had 3 dpoys. Led his team to the finals. Multiple all-nba and defensive teams. Top mvp 5 votings etc.

Dwight is in the great franchise players that just fell short tier. Of Ewing, Mourning etc.

[DMAVS41]

That's great but this thread is about prime Dwight.

Prime Dwight is what...08 through 11? He was clearly an all-time great during that run and was one of the best players in the league...although I thought and continue to think he was a bit over-rated at that time.

He had a great run in the 09 playoffs until the finals...where he didn't play great, but many all-time greats have done similar stuff.

What do you want people to say? Prime Dwight was awesome...but he didn't do anything on the court that warrants some crazy rankings. I don't know who says Joel is clearly better, but I don't think that...but the guys that I'd take over Dwight during those years in the league at the time were Lebron/Dirk/Kobe/Wade/Duncan...and I would take KG before his injury in 09 over him as well.

He was great, but I think in order for him to get the love or ranking you want...he would have had to play great and win the title in 09. He didn't, and sadly that was his last real chance to do anything of note based on his decline in play and leaving.

[theman93]

Great defender, but offensively he left so much to be desired. Every time he went to the post it was like watching a baby try to open a present for the first time. This from a lifelong Magic fan. He wasn't on any of these guys level except for maybe 09.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Sound analysis. I would have said it was overstated if you had him equal to the players in question, but you stopped short of that. He is inferior…however his peak is one of the most slept-on of all time.

Imagine listing these accolades without telling anyone who compiled them:

8x All-Star
8x All-NBA (5x 1st team)
5x All-D
5x Rebounding Leader
3x DPOY
2x Blocks Leader

+ Best player on a finalist

Without the baggage associated with his name and the unfortunate career trajectory, nobody would feel any internal conflict over calling him a Top 75 player.

That said, I don’t think he is quite the ceiling-raiser that the others are…so that prevents a bump to Top 50…and like SBT mentioned, Jokic is just creating further separation and will make this comparison a total laugher in a few years. Also agree that the league was, if not weaker, then at the very least more suited to him. We were in-between the “traditional” big man getting phased out and the more modern archetype taking his place. Dwight didn’t have to bang with either version and it was a pretty barren period for bigs.


But still, all in all good stuff.

[Baller234]

Sup guys, long time lurker.





8x All-Star
8x All-NBA (5x 1st team)
5x All-D
5x Rebounding Leader
3x DPOY
2x Blocks Leader

+ Best player on a finalist
.

Those awards are mostly conditional, especially the All-NBA selections considering it's chosen by position. Most of the best bigs in the league were classified as power forwards.

If we're being honest, Dwight was never the best big man in the league at any point in his career. He was a physical force sure but he was damn near inept at scoring unless he was right under the basket.

I'm not going to get caught up in media accolades. Those "awards" don't really mean anything at the end of the day. Howard was a great defensive player, but he I wouldn't call him a historically great player. If he cracks the Top 75 then he's definitely closer to 75 for me.

[Im Still Ballin]

You want to compare Dwight to the all-time greats who are first ballot Hall of Famers but that's not Dwight. People don't just look at a players best years but the career in total and when a guy's productivity falls off a cliff at an early age you can't just sit back and say well his potential was up there.

You don't think Dwight Howard is a first-ballot Hall of Famer? I disagree. This thread isn't about comparing careers; it's about comparing performance over their respective primes. A consecutive stretch of a few seasons that delineates the strongest chapter of their career.


No he isn't on their level. He had 3 dpoys. Led his team to the finals. Multiple all-nba and defensive teams. Top mvp 5 votings etc.

Dwight is in the great franchise players that just fell short tier. Of Ewing, Mourning etc.

And how do you define their "level?" What exactly are your criteria to determine and categorize these players into respective groups? We are talking about primes - a consecutive stretch of seasons representing their best level of play over a specific period of time.

I just want to know the methodology here.


Prime Dwight is what...08 through 11? He was clearly an all-time great during that run and was one of the best players in the league...although I thought and continue to think he was a bit over-rated at that time.

He had a great run in the 09 playoffs until the finals...where he didn't play great, but many all-time greats have done similar stuff.

What do you want people to say? Prime Dwight was awesome...but he didn't do anything on the court that warrants some crazy rankings. I don't know who says Joel is clearly better, but I don't think that...but the guys that I'd take over Dwight during those years in the league at the time were Lebron/Dirk/Kobe/Wade/Duncan...and I would take KG before his injury in 09 over him as well.

He was great, but I think in order for him to get the love or ranking you want...he would have had to play great and win the title in 09. He didn't, and sadly that was his last real chance to do anything of note based on his decline in play and leaving.

You think Prime Dwight was overrated? Please explain your reasoning.

I personally think he was underrated because the things he was best at are underappreciated. Defense, rebounding, setting screens, rolling, drawing fouls, paint scoring, playing off the ball, finishing plays, conditioning, durability, and motor. These qualities I believe help explain Dwight's impact and the question presented in the original post.

I'll also add that I think Dwight's conventional nature and utility added value beyond his own actual play.

By that, I mean regarding personnel/roster construction. He was very easy to fit with; he can get the most out of most commonplace players. He also makes it easy for his team to run its system without him, given he's a conventional center.

This is my problem with unconventional players. They create game plan and therefore personnel issues.

A seven-foot power forward who plays like a point small forward. A playmaking center that is a weak rim protector. A 300-pound center that has poor conditioning, durability, and motor; who would rather play like Kobe Bryant and settle for jump shots instead of taking it to the rim and drawing fouls.

It's harder to find the right pieces to mitigate these unconventional player's limitations and weaknesses.

I also don't think hinging an argument on whether a championship was won or not is sound logic. It assumes that the circumstances, supporting casts, and the strength of opposition were the same. It also feeds into common false narratives in the basketball world that causes people to ignore and disregard 90%+ of the games played. As if the regular season doesn't matter.

The truth is Dwight's teams over four seasons (2008-2011) averaged 55.5 wins with a 5.83 SRS. Jokic's teams from 2019-2023 - not including 2022 - averaged 53.05 wins with a 3.6 SRS. Adding playoff wins to the total probably doesn't help one more than the other in this comparison of wins and SRS. Dwight won 8 games against teams with very high SRS ratings in 2009.


Orlando 2008-2011:

- 55.5 wins 26.5 losses
- 5.83 SRS

Denver 2019-2023 (2022 not included):

- 53.05 wins 28.95 losses
- 3.6 SRS

I'm just wondering what your - and others - methodology is for making your determinations here. Mine is based on individual performance, team performance, and postseason success. The strength of supporting casts and injuries factor into my evaluations of those elements. I try to avoid falling into personal biases, false narratives, and relying too heavily on advanced statistics and play-by-play data.

[Overdrive]

And how do you define their "level?" What exactly are your criteria to determine and categorize these players into respective groups? We are talking about primes - a consecutive stretch of seasons representing their best level of play over a specific period of time.

I just want to know the methodology here.


This wasn't a jab at Dwight but in his defense, I think he's a or some tier above the guys John mentioned. Even if we're talking about primes it's about success and accolades. And Dwight definately has more than those guys. I think great teamleader/1st option who just fell short is a pretty good criteria to define Dwight and similarly viewed players. For me those are guys like Ewing, Mourning, Kidd, Payton, Paul and that's not a bad company to be in. They're usually top 40 or 50 players AT. I think Dwight was massively underrated at the 75 team.

If we're going by skills I think he still fits with about the same people. Jokic is definately one level above them. Yes, his defense is mediocre, but his all time great offense offsets that, easily. I agree what you said that rim protection is one of the most important skills in basketball, but it's not like Jokic is actively attacked at the rim as a liability. Dwight's offensive holes on the other hand were attacked as a liability. That's where I see the biggest difference.

[Carbine]

You bring up Jokic rim protection an awful lot for something that has little negative impact on his team's defense.

He contested at the rim quite well I thought. He was likely their most impactful defender during the playoffs.

So I ask quite simply, if he's their most impactful defender on a team that played as good a defense as anyone for the duration of the playoffs - how much of a factor is his lack of shot blocking/rim protection in the overall scheme of things?

I think next to nothing.

[Overdrive]

You bring up Jokic rim protection an awful lot for something that has little negative impact on his team's defense.

He contested at the rim quite well I thought. He was likely their most impactful defender during the playoffs.

So I ask quite simply, if he's their most impactful defender on a team that played as good a defense as anyone for the duration of the playoffs - how much of a factor is his lack of shot blocking/rim protection in the overall scheme of things?

I think next to nothing.

Shot blocking is one of rhe most overrated or let's say misinterpreted stats in the game. A game has like what? 80-100+ fga and the difference between an AT great shot blocker and an average one is 3 bpg? So that guy rejects 4 shots a game? That's it? It means nothing if he doesn't force players out of position unless he blocks shots. Camby was a prime example for that.

Not saying Dwight didn't do that, but Jokic also does. Great rim protection starts at not letting playiers get into position to score at the rim, not shot blocking. That's when you already have someone in position to score there.

[DMAVS41]

You don't think Dwight Howard is a first-ballot Hall of Famer? I disagree. This thread isn't about comparing careers; it's about comparing performance over their respective primes. A consecutive stretch of a few seasons that delineates the strongest chapter of their career.



And how do you define their "level?" What exactly are your criteria to determine and categorize these players into respective groups? We are talking about primes - a consecutive stretch of seasons representing their best level of play over a specific period of time.

I just want to know the methodology here.



You think Prime Dwight was overrated? Please explain your reasoning.

I personally think he was underrated because the things he was best at are underappreciated. Defense, rebounding, setting screens, rolling, drawing fouls, paint scoring, playing off the ball, finishing plays, conditioning, durability, and motor. These qualities I believe help explain Dwight's impact and the question presented in the original post.

I'll also add that I think Dwight's conventional nature and utility added value beyond his own actual play.

By that, I mean regarding personnel/roster construction. He was very easy to fit with; he can get the most out of most commonplace players. He also makes it easy for his team to run its system without him, given he's a conventional center.

This is my problem with unconventional players. They create game plan and therefore personnel issues.

A seven-foot power forward who plays like a point small forward. A playmaking center that is a weak rim protector. A 300-pound center that has poor conditioning, durability, and motor; who would rather play like Kobe Bryant and settle for jump shots instead of taking it to the rim and drawing fouls.

It's harder to find the right pieces to mitigate these unconventional player's limitations and weaknesses.

I also don't think hinging an argument on whether a championship was won or not is sound logic. It assumes that the circumstances, supporting casts, and the strength of opposition were the same. It also feeds into common false narratives in the basketball world that causes people to ignore and disregard 90%+ of the games played. As if the regular season doesn't matter.

The truth is Dwight's teams over four seasons (2008-2011) averaged 55.5 wins with a 5.83 SRS. Jokic's teams from 2019-2023 - not including 2022 - averaged 53.05 wins with a 3.6 SRS. Adding playoff wins to the total probably doesn't help one more than the other in this comparison of wins and SRS. Dwight won 8 games against teams with very high SRS ratings in 2009.



I'm just wondering what your - and others - methodology is for making your determinations here. Mine is based on individual performance, team performance, and postseason success. The strength of supporting casts and injuries factor into my evaluations of those elements. I try to avoid falling into personal biases, false narratives, and relying too heavily on advanced statistics and play-by-play data.

I completely disagree with your stance on unconventional players. I'm not sure exactly how you are defining that, but based on your post, I'd probably fully disagree with the points you want to award Howard for being a conventional center. I agree he was easy to build around in the sense you are talking about, but I also think he likely needs an all-time great wing to actually win the title...and that is extremely difficult to find.

My contention to you is that Howard wasn't capable of being the offensive engine of a team that actually wins the title...and so while you argue he's easy to build around, I'd argue that if you are trying for actually winning the title, finding him that offensive force is actually difficult.

Total strawman about the championship or not point. I already called Howard an all-time great during that stretch and one of the handful of best players in the league. The point about the championship was that he would have needed to have the individual performance that would lead to the team performance...that wins the title. There was nothing, other than Dwight's weaknesses and not playing well, that prevented him from dominating in the finals in 09. He didn't...and his team lost in large part because of it (not blaming him...he was the best player...but when the competition is the very best players ever...you actually have to do amazing shit).

End of the day...Dwight had an all-time great run from 08 through 11 essentially. In order for that run to vault into the likes of the players and rankings you seem to want to place him...he would have needed to play better in the biggest games/moments. He was not dominant, at all, in the 09 finals. He let Gasol tune him up on 65% TS and couldn't score...and even worse...couldn't score efficiently. Not like he was bad or something, but I think Gasol outplayed him....and you just aren't getting the cred you want when in the biggest series of your career...that happens...and then you don't come back and so something else.

I thought he was very good again in 2010, but the Magic needed more offense. They really struggled offensively in that series. Yes, part of that is the competition and his help, but you can't just shrug off his offensive shortcomings with "he's easy to build around"...again, sure, he's easy to build around and win a title if you have an all-time great wing generating offense. Without that, I think 09 is as close as you are getting to a title...and then you are in a situation where Dwight likely isn't your best player anyway.

My methodology is quite simple. How good I think a player is, how well do they perform consistently, how do they perform in the most important games, how does their team perform given the circumstances...Dwight rates quite highly for overall, but I think his lack of offense generation and performance in the 09 finals are absolutely solid data points that prevent him from being put in the class of players like Jokic or some of the 15 to 20 best ever.

[Im Still Ballin]

This wasn't a jab at Dwight but in his defense, I think he's a or some tier above the guys John mentioned. Even if we're talking about primes it's about success and accolades. And Dwight definately has more than those guys. I think great teamleader/1st option who just fell short is a pretty good criteria to define Dwight and similarly viewed players. For me those are guys like Ewing, Mourning, Kidd, Payton, Paul and that's not a bad company to be in. They're usually top 40 or 50 players AT. I think Dwight was massively underrated at the 75 team.

If we're going by skills I think he still fits with about the same people. Jokic is definately one level above them. Yes, his defense is mediocre, but his all time great offense offsets that, easily. I agree what you said that rim protection is one of the most important skills in basketball, but it's not like Jokic is actively attacked at the rim as a liability. Dwight's offensive holes on the other hand were attacked as a liability. That's where I see the biggest difference.

It's not about success and accolades so much as it's about the impact on winning - that's what we're trying to gauge here.

We look at several signals that help us cue into how much a player contributes to winning basketball games. Things like individual performance and team performance in relation to supporting cast quality and circumstance, such as injuries. And performance in the postseason against high-level opposition.

"great teamleader/1st option who just fell short" is a vague and arbitrary label that doesn't tell me much about a player's impact on winning. It doesn't say anything about team and individual performance on the whole, let alone postseason play. There's nothing about the playoff circumstances at play - supporting cast quality, opposition strength, injuries, etc.

All-time rankings are extremely subjective based on what you value. And they serve no purpose in this discussion as we're talking about primes.

But just how much does Jokic's offense offset his defensive shortcomings? That's the question I'm wondering. Denver won a championship but that doesn't mean Nikola's rim protection isn't subpar and one of the team's weak points. It'll continue to be a limitation that is protected via scheme and personnel.

Were Dwight's offensive limitations a frequent concern like Jokic's defensive limitations? I would say Jokic's were a greater weakness. Orlando was built around Dwight's paint presence and was consistently an elite half-court offense from 2008-2012. 2010-2011 was a down year offensively and they were ranked 8th out of 30 half-court offenses.

I don't have the numbers on me at the moment but I recall that Orlando was a top 5 half-court offense from 2008 to 2012. That's stronger than Denver's defenses from 2019 to 2023 not including 2022.

It's also important to mention that Orlando prioritized defensive rebounding and transition defense over offensive rebounding and transition offense. This limited easy buckets in the form of second-chance points and transition scoring. Orlando's scheme protected its defense while its offense suffered.

Still, Dwight was able to anchor elite half-court offenses and half-court defenses with lots of subpar one-way players. There's less of a tradeoff with Dwight compared to Jokic. This is why, despite his tremendous offense, Nikola's Denver squads haven't been dominant over the large sample size of 2019-2023 with 2022 not included.


Orlando 2008-2011:

- 55.5 wins 26.5 losses
- 5.83 SRS

Denver 2019-2023 (2022 not included):

- 53.05 wins 28.95 losses
- 3.6 SRS


You bring up Jokic rim protection an awful lot for something that has little negative impact on his team's defense.

He contested at the rim quite well I thought. He was likely their most impactful defender during the playoffs.

So I ask quite simply, if he's their most impactful defender on a team that played as good a defense as anyone for the duration of the playoffs - how much of a factor is his lack of shot blocking/rim protection in the overall scheme of things?

I think next to nothing.

I believe you're understating the impact of Jokic's subpar rim protection. Despite his supposedly GOAT-level offense, his teams haven't really performed at that high of a level from 2019 to 2023 with 2022 not included:


Orlando 2008-2011:

- 55.5 wins 26.5 losses
- 5.83 SRS

Denver 2019-2023 (2022 not included):

- 53.05 wins 28.95 losses
- 3.6 SRS

Denver has been the 13th-best defense on average over those seasons. About average. They were the 10th-ranked defense at best one year. And Denver's strong offenses mask this defensive shortcoming as well. The dynamic between offense and defense is a forgotten and under-discussed topic.

So I feel confident saying that building a team around Jokic has a greater tradeoff than Dwight.

As for your last point: Denver and Jokic played good defense in the 2023 playoffs. This thread isn't about whether or not you can win a championship with Jokic - a center that's a weak rim protector. They disproved that; anyone who believed in that was an idiot. Too many conclusive, absolute statements are thrown around.

But that doesn't change that Jokic and Denver have been defensively mediocre on the whole. An average defense over Jokic's prime.

[Im Still Ballin]

Shot blocking is one of rhe most overrated or let's say misinterpreted stats in the game. A game has like what? 80-100+ fga and the difference between an AT great shot blocker and an average one is 3 bpg? So that guy rejects 4 shots a game? That's it? It means nothing if he doesn't force players out of position unless he blocks shots. Camby was a prime example for that.

Not saying Dwight didn't do that, but Jokic also does. Great rim protection starts at not letting playiers get into position to score at the rim, not shot blocking. That's when you already have someone in position to score there.

Where did I mention blocks? Jokic played solid defense over a playoff run. It doesn't change that he's been a mediocre rim protector over the entirety of his prime. The question we should be asking is how much does this take away from his immense offensive value? What's the tradeoff?

[Baller789]

It's not just about blocking shots, it's about altering shots and discouraging the offense from going to the basket.

That's basically why bigmen are more influential defenders.

Though I agree with the Camby example. Not every shotblocker does this consistently.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Sup guys, long time lurker.




Those awards are mostly conditional, especially the All-NBA selections considering it's chosen by position. Most of the best bigs in the league were classified as power forwards.

If we're being honest, Dwight was never the best big man in the league at any point in his career. He was a physical force sure but he was damn near inept at scoring unless he was right under the basket.

I'm not going to get caught up in media accolades. Those "awards" don't really mean anything at the end of the day. Howard was a great defensive player, but he I wouldn't call him a historically great player. If he cracks the Top 75 then he's definitely closer to 75 for me.

Welcome!


Fully agree about media awards and disclaimer: I probably rail against them more than anyone here, lol.

But the Top 75 voters don’t, and that is the CV of a Top 50 (much less Top 75) player. No excuse for him to have been left off.

Now, factoring in context, he is closer to the 60’s and 70’s, like you say.

(And, to be clear, not all of those are media-awarded: rebounds, blocks.)


Also, who was a better big man from ‘08–10? Admittedly it was slim pickings in that transitional mini-era, but Howard was the best big guy on offer.

[DMAVS41]

It's not about success and accolades so much as it's about the impact on winning - that's what we're trying to gauge here.

So I feel confident saying that building a team around Jokic has a greater tradeoff than Dwight.


Individual offense, at the all-time great level, especially for a transcendent force like Jokic...is more valuable than you are giving it credit for.

You should not be confident about the bold at all. We have seen Jokic be the centerpiece of a team that had virtually unstoppable offense when they needed it the most...and play quality defense overall and when they needed it the most. I'm not sure where you are getting confident that it is easier to build a championship roster around Dwight than Jokic. It simply isn't...

In the playoffs this year...the Nuggets had the best offense and the 3rd best defense. In 09, the Magic had the 5th best offense and the 3rd best defense.

Team defense can get good enough, quite easily, around players like Jokic/Dirk/Curry...in which that transcendent offense shows the significance it has without the downsides you are claiming.

Like I said above...end of the day...you are discounting how important it is to have an elite offense generator in the playoffs. It is almost always needed to win...and in no way, to take Dirk as an example...is getting Tyson Chandler harder than getting a offensive generating wing like Howard would have needed. In fact, it is much harder to get that elite wing.

The problem with a player like Dwight with what we saw...to take the 09 finals again...the most important games of his entire career....is that he couldn't score efficiently or at volume...and he doesn't really generate offense consistently for his teammates. Not that he never does, but he's not doing what a Jokic/Dirk/Curry do just by being on the court...not even close of course....and that is a bigger factor in being the clear cut best player on a team that wins the title. Again, that better defense of course matters...but it matters at the individual level less...and fair or not...that is what Howard did at his peak...Gasol outplayed him and he could barely get over 15 ppg.

Now, if you want to talk about good a team with prime Chris Paul and Dwight Howard would be...an ideal pairing imo...okay, Howard/Paul might have a higher ceiling than Jokic/Paul, for example, but I don't really see the relevance to something like that as you could find a lot of pairings in which Jokic/Player X would be better.

Elite individual offense at the level Jokic played at is simply more valuable than what Howard brought to the table....and that is why Jokic has already had more success in his peak/prime than Howard ever did.

[Im Still Ballin]

I completely disagree with your stance on unconventional players. I'm not sure exactly how you are defining that, but based on your post, I'd probably fully disagree with the points you want to award Howard for being a conventional center. I agree he was easy to build around in the sense you are talking about, but I also think he likely needs an all-time great wing to actually win the title...and that is extremely difficult to find.

An unconventional player creates ripple effects that influence the other players on the court. There are certain essential responsibilities you expect and require from certain positions in basketball. Such as paint/rim protection from a center.

What one player lacks must be made up with the others. And what's lacking has to come from other positions. Jokic's weak rim protection requires his teams to look for big and versatile forwards that can provide secondary rim protection and help defense. Dirk would fit this bill as well.

How much of a tradeoff is their defensive shortcomings? How much does it take off their transcendent offense?

These sorts of players that fix these issues are harder to come by. And may often cost more. This is less of a concern with Dwight because he's a conventional center. He doesn't create position-based tradeoff concerns. He has shortcomings but he does what a center needs to do. Defend, rebound, set screens, play off the ball, and finish plays.

I believe scoring in the paint and drawing fouls are very important. Kevin Garnett was a power forward that settled for jump shots, minimizing his team's rim and foul pressure and not collapsing the defense enough. This is less of a concern to me because he's a power forward.

I have similar concerns with Embiid. But with him, it's more about his poor durability, conditioning, and motor. And how he distributes his limited resources poorly. He'd rather take on an excessive scoring load and settle for jump shots at the expense of rebounding, defense, setting screens, and finishing plays in the paint.

This topic could be an interesting discussion.


My contention to you is that Howard wasn't capable of being the offensive engine of a team that actually wins the title...and so while you argue he's easy to build around, I'd argue that if you are trying for actually winning the title, finding him that offensive force is actually difficult.

Orlando was a couple of missed free throws and a Courtney Lee layup from going up 3-1. That LA series was a lot closer than people remember. Two of LA's wins were in overtime.

I just can't agree with your take that Dwight couldn't have been the offensive engine of a title-winning team when the margin between winning and losing in 2009 was that slim.


Total strawman about the championship or not point. I already called Howard an all-time great during that stretch and one of the handful of best players in the league. The point about the championship was that he would have needed to have the individual performance that would lead to the team performance...that wins the title. There was nothing, other than Dwight's weaknesses and not playing well, that prevented him from dominating in the finals in 09. He didn't...and his team lost in large part because of it (not blaming him...he was the best player...but when the competition is the very best players ever...you actually have to do amazing shit).

And does everything come down to whether or not a championship is won? Do we just ignore all of the other games that are played? And how do we compare the circumstances? The quality of supporting casts, injuries, and the strength of the opposition.

And what of the value of defense and rebounding? Analytics experts admit they can't quantify and accurately assess defense. I'd need to watch the 2009 NBA Finals very carefully to get a more concrete picture. He did record like 5.6 combined stocks per game for what it's worth. Along with 15 rebounds per game.

Why is Nikola's series win over Miami in the Finals worth more than Dwight's series win over Cleveland? The Cavaliers were like 74-16 with an SRS of like 9-10 at that stage. The whole championship-or-bust mentality is just another one of those media-driven false narratives common in professional sports.

The Finals are just a best-of-seven series. Seven games. How much can I really learn about a player in 4-7 games? Sample size. Why do I learn more in one playoff round compared to another? I'm trying to gleam a player's impact on winning games.


End of the day...Dwight had an all-time great run from 08 through 11 essentially. In order for that run to vault into the likes of the players and rankings you seem to want to place him...he would have needed to play better in the biggest games/moments. He was not dominant, at all, in the 09 finals. He let Gasol tune him up on 65% TS and couldn't score...and even worse...couldn't score efficiently. Not like he was bad or something, but I think Gasol outplayed him....and you just aren't getting the cred you want when in the biggest series of your career...that happens...and then you don't come back and so something else.

15.4 ppg on 56.2% TS. Took like 8.6 shots per game. 15.2 rebounds, 2.2 assists, 1.6 steals, 4.0 blocks. I'd have to watch every game to see how good his defense was, but guys like Kobe and LeBron have played worse in the Finals. Not that it matters that much, because the Finals are just a few games and another playoff series.

My point here is the same as in the prior paragraph. Media-driven narratives fuel the "all-or-nothing" and "championship-or-bust" mentality. At the end of the day, all I'm concerned with is the player's impact on winning. A larger sample size will do.


I thought he was very good again in 2010, but the Magic needed more offense. They really struggled offensively in that series. Yes, part of that is the competition and his help, but you can't just shrug off his offensive shortcomings with "he's easy to build around"...again, sure, he's easy to build around and win a title if you have an all-time great wing generating offense. Without that, I think 09 is as close as you are getting to a title...and then you are in a situation where Dwight likely isn't your best player anyway.

They lost a couple of close ones in the ECF. It happens. Does this mean I should disregard everything else? The supporting cast decayed after 2010 and then Dwight did too after 2012. There was a window and then it was gone.

And why does Dwight need an all-time great wing? Who are you referring to? Not Hedo or Rashard surely.


My methodology is quite simple. How good I think a player is, how well do they perform consistently, how do they perform in the most important games, how does their team perform given the circumstances...Dwight rates quite highly for overall, but I think his lack of offense generation and performance in the 09 finals are absolutely solid data points that prevent him from being put in the class of players like Jokic or some of the 15 to 20 best ever.

5 games is a solid data point? If that's true, then 6 games in the ECF against a 74-16, 9-10 SRS Cavaliers team is a more solid data point.

Right?

Dwight's offense is much less of a concern than Jokic's defense is. Apparently 20.2 ppg on 60.6% FG and 62.6% TS in the playoffs prevents Dwight - one of the best defenders of the 21st century - from impacting games like Jokic. Despite the large sample size of the numbers not supporting that conclusion.

[Carbine]

A lot can be learned in a series. Players get exposed for what they are good or bad when the stakes rise.

Gobert is the first example that comes to mind. All time defender regular season, gets exposed in the playoffs.

Joel is another. His post season play is THE reason he isn't considered the best center of his era.

It's clearly not difficult whatsoever to build around Jokic either. It's incredibly easy actually. His team's have over achieved every year for the last 3 years right?

Nobody had them getting to the WCF. Nobody had them damn near 50 wins without their two best players. Very very few had them winning a title this year as their pre season odds show.

His 2021-2022 season proved it without a show of a doubt. His team was trash by NBA playoff standards. If you can put that caliber of talent around a player and still make the playoffs, your ability to be "built around" is not difficult whatsoever.

[Baller234]

Welcome! Also, who was a better big man from ‘08–10? Admittedly it was slim pickings in that transitional mini-era, but Howard was the best big guy on offer.

I guess maybe there was a 2-3 year stretch where he was technically the best big, but that's more of an indictment on the era itself than a point in his favor. Personally I would rather take Gasol over him.

I never considered Howard to an elite big, just wasn't reliable.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Thr differences are mental. Dwight wasn't a mental giant like the other guys mentioned. It makes a difference in the playoffs. Better than Embiid obviously. Not sure why you're lumping in guys in totally different tiers.

Jokic is in his own tier, KG is one below, Dwight is one below that, and Embiid is at the bottom in his own shit tier.



Edit: not just mental. Dwight relied on athleticism more than the other guys. Skill deficit as well compared to Jokic and KG on top of mental inferiority.

[DMAVS41]

- Yea, I disagree with the level of players you are talking about...they, in fact, are easier to build around. Just take Dirk/Jokic...they now have both won titles without anything noteworthy, at all, in terms of the type of supporting cast it takes to win a title. Lesser versions of them that play similar? Sure, but you are comparing Dwight favorably to some of the best ever.

- That makes my point for me. Howard had plenty of help to win that series...and he couldn't get it done. So the only data point in the biggest series of his career, against the best competition of his career, is that he was underwhelming and his team still had a decent shot at it...and by your own take, if he played better, the Magic might win. So when you extrapolate from that and Howard needs more...it then becomes a case where he might not be the best player on the team...and then it gets into a weird area of comparing him as a 2nd best guy...and of course he'll be near the top of that list.

- Again, yes, guys have played worse...but if Kobe never won and his only finals was 04...or Lebron's only finals were 07 and 11...they'd rightly be thought of ranked much differently. Sorry, this is a non point and just a backdoor way to ignore that Howard in fact never lead a team to the title. You have to actually play great, lead, and win. Howard did not at the level it takes to warrant such comparisons.

- Disregard everything else? Of course not. Again, total strawman. I've already said I think Howard was an all-time great and elite player during that stretch. The problem is that you think winning in the 50's in the regular season with certain SRS ratings and then not playing your best in the biggest moment of your career...is enough warrant comparisons to the truly best ever. I'd understand it more if Howard was as good of a player as peak KG or something...playing on ass teams with no chance.

- Howard's prime in and of itself is already small in terms of sample size...and yes, what a player does in the most important games of his career...matters. Can't believe this is controversial with you. Howard has an awesome player from 08 through 11 but simply did not play at a level or produce the results that warrant your take on him. All we have is what we do...Howard played some of his worst basketball in the biggest series of his career. You can ignore that, but I won't and reality doesn't. Maybe he could have done more later on in his career if he got better...but that isn't the discussion we are having. We are discussing precisely how good Howard was during his prime...and what he did in the 09 Finals absolutely matters....and his play in that series was/is a reflection of how good at basketball he was at the time.

- Yes, it does prevent him from being as good as Jokic. Because you treating raw stats like that have equal impact. The level of offense provided by Jokic is hard to put into words how much more that helps his team than Howard's offense. And, again, team defense can picked up...around the non defensive stopper...even without great defenders...but you can't really do what you need to do offensively without that guy. The Nuggets just had the 3rd best defense in the playoffs. Murray/Jokic basically played 40 minutes a game...two defenders that lets call average. I actually think Jokic is better than he gets credit for, but who cares...the two biggest minute guys do not move the needle defensively. Yet, they played really good defense most of the playoffs...and they aren't even surrounded by a ton of great defenders. Gordon is really good...KCP is pretty good. Porter is not good. On your analysis...it would be damn near impossible to have a quality defense with players like that...yet, they did...and that is what you are missing...around Jokic...you can build elite all-time great offenses and defenses definitely good enough to win. Around Howard as the best player...you cannot build all-time great offenses, but you can build all-time great defenses...the problem is that missing that offensive generator will likely cost you in the end...just like it did the Magic in 09.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

I guess maybe there was a 2-3 year stretch where he was technically the best big, but that's more of an indictment on the era itself than a point in his favor. Personally I would rather take Gasol over him.

I never considered Howard to an elite big, just wasn't reliable.



Fair enough, and I do agree that he was kind of just the best by default at that point.

[Im Still Ballin]

So only certain playoff series matter? Okay. What happened in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022? Why did Nikola lose in those seasons? I know what you're going to say. Injuries! Going up against the champs! So I guess the circumstances and context only matter when you want it to.

Cut the crap, mother****ers. Carbine and DMAVS. Answer me a simple question: why haven't Nikola's teams performed as well as Dwight's on the whole?


Orlando 2008-2011:

- 55.5 wins 26.5 losses
- 5.83 SRS

Denver 2019-2023 (2022 not included):

- 53.05 wins 28.95 losses
- 3.6 SRS

I just want to know.

And to reiterate: I have no problems with anyone picking Jokic. I just don't agree that "it isn't close." I can and have made a strong argument for Dwight. What I don't like is this hyperbolic mentality. As if it's disrespectful to compare the two.

[Carbine]

Jokic teams have done better because he won a title. It's very simple. Winning a title is extremely hard to do, that trumps all.

[warriorfan]

Dwight gets underrated because people don’t appreciate the impact high level defense gives and also he had a somewhat ugly offensive game which people will also hate on even if it’s effective

[Im Still Ballin]

Jokic teams have done better because he won a title. It's very simple. Winning a title is extremely hard to do, that trumps all.

That's such poor logic though. And I'll say this for the millionth time. It assumes that the circumstances were the same... That the variables were standardized. But they weren't. We know that. Injuries, supporting cast quality, strength of opposition.

You call yourselves intelligent basketball fans but you repeat and engage in the same media-driven false narratives.

[Carbine]

The logic is sound. The goal is to win it all, not make it to the finals and play poorly as an individual while losing. Those are the moments/series that define players. It defines teams. That series was very winnable for the Magic but Dwight did not play up to his regular standards (let alone exceed them like many top players do in big series) and it likely cost his team a title.

Jokic played above and beyond this playoffs. Nobody in the history of the game has scored 30 a game on a title winning team at his efficiency. If that wasn't enough he was dishing 9-10 assists per game. Rebounding at a great rate.

He took his game to ANOTHER level that was already a two time back to back MVP and runner up MVP. Read that again and let it sink in.

[DMAVS41]

So only certain playoff series matter? Okay. What happened in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022? Why did Nikola lose in those seasons? I know what you're going to say. Injuries! Going up against the champs! So I guess the circumstances and context only matter when you want it to.

Cut the crap, mother****ers. Carbine and DMAVS. Answer me a simple question: why haven't Nikola's teams performed as well as Dwight's on the whole?



I just want to know.

And to reiterate: I have no problems with anyone picking Jokic. I just don't agree that "it isn't close." I can and have made a strong argument for Dwight. What I don't like is this hyperbolic mentality. As if it's disrespectful to compare the two.

Oh, so you are just ignorant. That makes things easier...I'll explain.

Jokic was an all-star level player dating back to the 19 season imo, but he really didn't take the leap to clear better than prime Dwight until the 21 season imo. So, to answer your question...what happened in those years? I'll try to speak your language.

19 - Jokic was the best player on a 54 win team and lost in 7 in round 2. He did 27/14/8 in that series.
20 - Best player on a team that made the conference finals. Did not play great in the conference finals...again, at this point in his career...he had not elevated his play to a level clearly better than prime Dwight imo.

21/22...I guess you don't know, but Murray was hurt for both years in the playoffs and Porter was hurt in 22. Nobody with a brain would ignore that and ask questions about why he "lost" in those seasons.

23...well, he did something Dwight never did.

You simply don't know what you are talking about. You are either ignorant to when Jokic got truly all-time elite and to the circumstances of losing Murray for those two playoffs....or you are just choosing to play dumb.

And, no, you haven't made strong arguments for Dwight. Dwight was really good...you just take it too far.

And reality and Dwight's results go against you...you don't get to get outplayed by Pau in the finals in the biggest games of your career at your peak....and then get compared favorably to the likes of Jokic after the last 3 seasons Jokic just put up.

It "isn't close" because nobody without an incredible amount of bias is looking at the level Jokic has played at the last 3 years...combined with his team results...and concluding that Dwight Howard was an equal level player based on what we saw. Jokic just did 30/14/7 (67% TS) in the Finals...if he had scored 15 ppg on poor efficiency and lost...no ****ing way Jokic would be getting the all-time comps he's getting.

In your ****ed up world...Jokic could have shit the bed in the finals...and it wouldn't matter...because that is exactly what you are doing with Dwight.

Again, his finals performance was the biggest moment of his career and was a reflection of how good at basketball he was. Full stop. That is what we are talking about...how good Dwight actually proved he was. Not how good he could have been. How good he was. And you don't get compared to guys like Jokic when you don't perform at the same level when it matters most.

Is this really difficult to understand? You actually have to play your best when it matters most. This should not be something to dispute.

[DMAVS41]

That's such poor logic though. And I'll say this for the millionth time. It assumes that the circumstances were the same... That the variables were standardized. But they weren't. We know that. Injuries, supporting cast quality, strength of opposition.

You call yourselves intelligent basketball fans but you repeat and engage in the same media-driven false narratives.

So....

Your logic is to over-value what Dwight did playing in an Eastern Conference racking up a lot of free regular seasons wins...then makes one finals, plays subpar, and he's as good as Jokic? I just don't understand.

You act like Dwight did something noteworthy in those handful of years for an all-time great. Like, it is a bit strange...I mean...it is just really good play out of a guy that made one finals run and couldn't perform on the biggest stage. I think Dwight was better, but I don't think you understand what a guy like Mourning did...he basically did close to Howard's prime statline for 8 years. Howard is closer to Mourning than he is a guy like Jokic.

I'd understand your view if I was on here saying Howard was a scrub or something. But giving him all-time great status combined with putting him top 6 or whatever in the league...that just isn't something to argue about. Players don't get peak Jokic comps with a level of play of Howard...rightfully so.

[John8204]

You don't think Dwight Howard is a first-ballot Hall of Famer? I disagree. This thread isn't about comparing careers; it's about comparing performance over their respective primes. A consecutive stretch of a few seasons that delineates the strongest chapter of their career.


Well it's dependent on the class of options...Manu got in on the first ballot and Ben Wallace didn't. He;ll make page one of
https://www.notinhalloffame.com/basketball?start=0

If he's in this HOF class he's got a 75% because it's Carmello, Rondo, Aldridge, Haslem, and Iggy

Next year if it's Russ, CPIII, Lebron, etc...he won't get in

[Im Still Ballin]

So....

Your logic is to over-value what Dwight did playing in an Eastern Conference racking up a lot of free regular seasons wins...then makes one finals, plays subpar, and he's as good as Jokic? I just don't understand.

SRS (simple rating system) adjusts for strength of schedule. It's the single best metric we have for evaluating the performance of a team against its competition.

Dwight's 2008-2011 teams had a +2.23 higher SRS than Nikola's 2009-2023 (2022 not included) teams. Please explain this discrepancy.

Also answer this: who faced the tougher playoff opposition? Dwight in 2009 or Nikola in 2023? Also, consider the injuries and strength of supporting casts.

I've brought this point up like three times now but you keep ignoring it.


You act like Dwight did something noteworthy in those handful of years for an all-time great. Like, it is a bit strange...I mean...it is just really good play out of a guy that made one finals run and couldn't perform on the biggest stage. I think Dwight was better, but I don't think you understand what a guy like Mourning did...he basically did close to Howard's prime statline for 8 years. Howard is closer to Mourning than he is a guy like Jokic.

He anchored high-level teams over several seasons with a supporting cast no better than Jokic's. An average of +5.83 SRS over four regular seasons' worth of games. Jokic's best four years (not including 2022) came out to +3.6 SRS.

Alonzo Mourning was a great player too. He anchored high-level teams too and, also like Dwight, ran into an all-time great team in the playoffs. The '09 Lakers and '97 Bulls are stronger opposition than any team Jokic has faced in the playoffs. The '09 Cavaliers were also statistically one of the strongest teams ever - until Dwight beat them.

My suspicion is that there is far less between these players than what you and many suggest. All these great players have great and consistent individual performance, team performance, and playoff performance. They're all in one big room together.


I'd understand your view if I was on here saying Howard was a scrub or something. But giving him all-time great status combined with putting him top 6 or whatever in the league...that just isn't something to argue about. Players don't get peak Jokic comps with a level of play of Howard...rightfully so.

What do you mean by top 6 in the league? I mean, I think 2008-2012 Dwight has an argument for being a top 5 player for 4-5 seasons and a top 3 player for 2-3 of those seasons. He anchored high-level teams, had strong playoff results, and stellar individual play.

If it's a question about how we assign credit, then that'd be an interesting discussion. Was Dwight not as important to his team's success as any other player in the league? He's the essential cornerstone for both sides of the court.

Take him off that team and I'm not sure they make the playoffs. And Gortat doing well off the bench doesn't mean he'd do well as a starter and that the team would do well as a whole. All it means is that he was part of specific lineups that performed well in specific circumstances.

I know ESPN had Dwight #2 in 2011 and #3 in 2012 for its annual player rankings. Sports Illustrated had Dwight #2 in 2011 as well. Slam Magazine had Dwight like #5 in 2009 and 2010. These don't really mean anything but sometimes it's good to be reminded of how a player was viewed in their time.

I never trust and fully buy into what the sports media or general fans are saying. There are a lot of false narratives that help formulate personal biases. My stance has remained the same: Dwight was and continues to be underrated because the things he was best at are underappreciated.

Only Kobe and LeBron I'd have a hard time arguing against. CP3, Wade, and Dirk were more inconsistent over that time period than Dwight. I'm trying to think of anyone else but Durant was too young and Duncan too old.

As for your last point: what determines these levels? The only thing that matters is how a player impacts the wins and losses. Box score numbers don't make one player better than another. Neither do advanced statistics and play-by-play data. They can help us gleam a player's impact but they're by no means a silver bullet and have many holes.

Comparing individual players in a team sport is not an easy endeavor. I just don't think it's as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.

[DMAVS41]

- No, I'm not ignoring it. I'm telling you that Howard's performance was not good enough. You keep ignoring that that all we have from Howard in the most important games of his career, at his peak, was underwhelming. Again, you keep ignoring that if Jokic had played this year at the level of Howard in the 09 Finals...not only would the Nuggets have lost, but Jokic would rightfully be considered a worse player because he would be a worse player. This should not be controversial and you are either playing dumb or ignoring reality.

- Again, you have to look at when Jokic got better than Howard and him lacking help with injuries. You are the one that continues to ignore the actual circumstances. SRS is a team rating...it does not adjust for anything other than how the team performs. It also takes into account point differential...which can be misleading as well. I'm not going to put in the time, but I don't think it is normalized each year. Meaning a team could rank higher in the league in a given year...but have a lower SRS. For example, the 08 Magic had a higher SRS than the 11 Mavs, but ranked worse in the league. So...I'll give you a much better indication of how a single star player impacts team performance in the regular seasons in questions...

From 08-11...the Magic were +9.2 points per 100 possessions with Howard on the court...and were +.6 points per 100 possessions with Howard off the court

That is really great impact from Dwight. He was clearly the best player and deserves the most credit for their success. Winning mid to high 50's is also impressive. However, lets look at Jokic since he got to the level I'm claiming...

From 21-23...the Nuggets were +8.9 points per 100 possessions with Jokic on the court...and were -5.8 points per 100 possessions with Jokic off the court.

Now, I want you to actually think about that huge difference. Jokic played roughly half of those games missing either Murray or Porter...and in a huge chunk of games...missing both. The Nuggets still performed amazingly well (almost as good as the Magic with Howard) when Jokic was on the court...but fell completely the **** apart without him...getting destroyed by 5.8 points per 100.

I'll state it again even more clearly...the Magic without Howard were 6.4 points per 100 possessions better than the Nuggets were without Jokic during the two timeframes we are comparing.

Now, you come on here asking why the discrepancy...again, you are either ignorant or playing dumb. If Jokic had a team capable of doing what Howard's team did without him on the court...he would have been winning in the 60's, probably easily...

Please just admit you are wrong about this regular season stuff. Nobody that knew about the injuries to Porter/Murray would be asking the questions you are.

- Mourning was a great player. Again you strawman like I'm saying Mourning and Howard were not great. They were. They were not at the level that Jokic has reached these last three years though. Transcendent individual offense is more valuable than the type of play Mourning/Howard bring to the table. It is why Curry/Dirk/Bird/Jokic all have led teams to titles as the clear cut best player and guys like Mourning/Howard didn't.

- During that time...I'd rather have Dirk/Lebron/Wade/Kobe/Duncan over Howard. I'd also take KG before his injury in 09. So that is 5 or 6 guys. Could argue CP3 as well, but I'd rather have Howard. Which guys on that list was Howard a better player than?

Dirk was more inconsistent? He barely missed a game during that timeframe like Howard...off the top of my head...did something like 25/8/3 (59% TS) in the regular season...and something like 27/9/3 (62% TS) in the playoffs. Won 50 more each year...won 57 in 11 despite his team sucking without him on the court. Led a team to a title.

You talk about criteria like it is impossible. Dirk had great stats, led his team to solid regular seasons given the circumstances, upped his game in the playoffs, and led a team to the title. And somehow Howard was better? No, he wasn't...what you are doing is using Howard's superior supporting casts with him off the court to prop up some regular season metrics to ignore his actual performance in the most important games of his career.

Like I said above...you know who would have had better SRS ratings if their team didn't suck without them on the court? Dirk and Jokic. Just take 2009 Howard vs 2011 Dirk...what explains the SRS? Well, how about the fact that Howard's team was +2 points per 100 without him on the court and Dirk's team was -5.4 points per 100.

Then you come on here arguing...the Magic had a 6.48 SRS...and the Mavs had a 4.41 SRS...why? I'll tell you, again, the Magic were 7.4 points per 100 better without Howard than the Mavs were without Dirk. Despite that...Dirk still got them to 57 wins...and even worse for you, the Mavs went 2-7 in games Dirk didn't play.

You remind me of Rose fans over-rating the shit out of his impact while ignoring how great the Bulls were without Rose on the court.

Whether you want to admit it or not...a huge reason for the SRS ratings of the Magic from 08 through 11 was the fact that Howard's team performed quite well with him off the court.

Lastly, I agree, comparing players is difficult. But when one guy plays all-time great in the biggest games of his career and leads a team to a title...and the other racks up some wins in the regular season and then plays some of his worst basketball in the biggest games of his career...I'll go with the guy that played better.

Again, this isn't hard.

[DMAVS41]

Just to clarify and make things easier about the on/off and net rating stuff...here is what should put some doubt into how highly you are valuing SRS...and just to make sure you understand...on/off or net rating refers to well a team performs with a player on the court vs off the court. So, just to take Howard over your time period...his teams were +9.2 points per 100 with him on...and +.6 points per 100 with him off. Now, this is by no means perfect, but for an individual's impact...it is better than SRS as it is really hard to get a high point differential and a lot of wins with teammates that fall apart when a single player leaves the court.

So having cleared that up...you might find this interesting...

Howard from 08-11...+8.6 Net Rating

Dirk from 08-11...+10.4 Net Rating

Jokic from 21-23...+14.7 Net Rating

So when you go on and on about SRS, ignoring the actual circumstances of Howard's teammates playing much better without him...playing in a pretty weak East at the time getting some free wins...I just don't know if you are confused...or just arguing in bad faith. Again, it isn't like the Magic were winning mid 60's...they had a couple 59 win seasons and then low 50's iirc....and comparing to Dirk's team at the time...played in an objectively easier conference.

So what you are doing...is exactly what you are accusing others of doing. Which is pretty comical...your main focus is on a team metric that is greatly benefitted from having teammates that perform well with the player you are propping off the court. I'll say that again...your main argument is a metric that is greatly impacted by Howard sitting on the bench and his teammates playing well.

But if you added the context and nuance to SRS or regular season wins...you'd see that guys like Dirk/Jokic performed just as well given their circumstances...I'd probably argue better in reality...but I don't really care to.

Then, we get to the most important games and Howard was clearly the worst on those and, just from a basketball analysis standpoint, my argument is that skillset and offensive dominance of a guy like Jokic is inherently more valuable than what Howard brought to the table.

And, what do you know, Jokic came through when it mattered most and is sitting at home with a ring...something Howard couldn't do as an individual...he could not come through when it mattered most. Forget just losing...focus on his actual impact in those games...he was underwhelming. He didn't lose because of his teammates...you said it yourself...

So, I'll go with the guys that have proven they can lift their teams in the regular season and come through when it matters most.

Again, this should not be controversial.

[Im Still Ballin]

- No, I'm not ignoring it. I'm telling you that Howard's performance was not good enough. You keep ignoring that that all we have from Howard in the most important games of his career, at his peak, was underwhelming. Again, you keep ignoring that if Jokic had played this year at the level of Howard in the 09 Finals...not only would the Nuggets have lost, but Jokic would rightfully be considered a worse player because he would be a worse player. This should not be controversial and you are either playing dumb or ignoring reality.

I'm not going to judge a player's impact based on one playoff series. The only reason why you'd weigh the NBA Finals more than other playoff games is because the strength of the opposition is typically higher. That's it. And as we know, oftentimes the Conference Finals present stronger opponents.

So why is the 2009 ECF less valuable in this analysis?

Cleveland was 74-16 with an SRS between 9-10 before the ECF. They were one of the strongest "healthy" teams ever - until they played Orlando. Suddenly everyone pretends they sucked after that happened. Don't forget that Jameer Nelson was out injured.

This is a bigger scalp than any team Jokic has beaten in the playoffs.


Below I’ve indexed the top “healthy” teams — when all 25-minute per game players were in action for a game — since the shot clock (1955) by SRS (adjusted margin of victory). Using this criteria, 51 teams have posted at least an 8.0 SRS when healthy. Just 29 teams have eclipsed the 9.0 mark. (10 of those teams failed to win a title — well inline with what is predicted by the variability of a 7-game series.) The best are below, playoffs included:

https://thinkingbasketball.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Screen-Shot-2016-07-31-at-2.27.57-PM-554x1024.png

Please explain to me why this series doesn't tell me as much about Dwight's impact as the 2009 Finals does. Not that I'm the one here arguing that a small sample of games should be used to determine a player's impact. Why are we prioritizing 5 games out of 53 over 6 other ones?

The only answer would be that it's more important, but you have to win every round. The Finals are no more important than the Conference Finals.

Here we go again with stupid media-driven false narratives. Championship or bust! Losing in the Finals is worse than losing earlier in the playoffs. The Finals are the only games that matter!

Because you love to post Dwight's 2009 Finals stats so much, here's a refresher from that ECF series:

- 6 games
- 25.8 ppg, 13.0 rpg, 2.8 apg, 0.8 spg, 1.2 bpg
- 65.1% FG, 70.1% FT, 68.9% TS, 26.9% usage rating

And those are just numbers. Doesn't tell me nearly as much as you'd think. Same goes for advanced statistics and play-by-play data such as on/off net rating and RAPM figures. Which is why you need to watch the games. Dwight was the cornerstone of both the offense and the defense. Very easy to construct a roster and game plan around.

The 2009 Lakers were a stronger-performing team than the 2023 Heat. Why is this not considered in your Finals-obsessive analysis?


- Again, you have to look at when Jokic got better than Howard and him lacking help with injuries. You are the one that continues to ignore the actual circumstances. SRS is a team rating...it does not adjust for anything other than how the team performs. It also takes into account point differential...which can be misleading as well. I'm not going to put in the time, but I don't think it is normalized each year. Meaning a team could rank higher in the league in a given year...but have a lower SRS. For example, the 08 Magic had a higher SRS than the 11 Mavs, but ranked worse in the league. So...I'll give you a much better indication of how a single star player impacts team performance in the regular seasons in questions...

From 08-11...the Magic were +9.2 points per 100 possessions with Howard on the court...and were +.6 points per 100 possessions with Howard off the court

That is really great impact from Dwight. He was clearly the best player and deserves the most credit for their success. Winning mid to high 50's is also impressive. However, lets look at Jokic since he got to the level I'm claiming...

From 21-23...the Nuggets were +8.9 points per 100 possessions with Jokic on the court...and were -5.8 points per 100 possessions with Jokic off the court.

Now, I want you to actually think about that huge difference. Jokic played roughly half of those games missing either Murray or Porter...and in a huge chunk of games...missing both. The Nuggets still performed amazingly well (almost as good as the Magic with Howard) when Jokic was on the court...but fell completely the **** apart without him...getting destroyed by 5.8 points per 100.

I'll state it again even more clearly...the Magic without Howard were 6.4 points per 100 possessions better than the Nuggets were without Jokic during the two timeframes we are comparing.

Now, you come on here asking why the discrepancy...again, you are either ignorant or playing dumb. If Jokic had a team capable of doing what Howard's team did without him on the court...he would have been winning in the 60's, probably easily...

Please just admit you are wrong about this regular season stuff. Nobody that knew about the injuries to Porter/Murray would be asking the questions you are.

2019 was included instead of 2022 because of injuries and the fact it's one of his team's best-performing seasons. There was no nefarious intent; Dwight's sample includes four seasons - it was about matching that. 2021 was kept in because Jamal's injury circumstance was somewhat similar to Jameer's in 2009.

I'm aware of SRS' shortcomings. But even in relative rankings, Orlando over those four seasons ranks higher than Denver. Remember, my initial contention was that if Jokic was so much better, and the supporting casts were negligible, why isn't it shown in team performance?

Even if that +2.23 SRS differential gap was explained by blowouts/point differentials and other factors, Jokic's Denver squads still wouldn't be above and beyond. I only take issue with the idea that it's ridiculous/disrespectful to compare the two and that it's "not even close." I think strong arguments can be made either way.

As for play-by-play data/on-off numbers, I don't take them at face value. There's a reason why RAPM (regularized adjusted plus-minus) exists. Lineups and substitution patterns matter and influence the numbers. I've just seen too many oddities and issues to care that much about it.

Apparently, Jokic was a negative on/off guy in the playoff until after this postseason run. Embiid on the other hand had very strong playoff on/off numbers. Embiid's RAPM numbers I believe are stronger than Jokic's too. I remember Mookie Blaylock and Nate McMillan were top ten in on/off in the '90s. Khris Middleton led the league in RAPM in like 2015. 2018 LeBron barely had a positive on/off rating. Ryan Anderson had like a top 5 RAPM in 2012.

A bunch of guys who played with Dwight all had strong RAPM numbers. Funny that.

All I'm saying is that there's a shitload of noise and so many oddities. Hard to take it for anything really.

[Im Still Ballin]

- Mourning was a great player. Again you strawman like I'm saying Mourning and Howard were not great. They were. They were not at the level that Jokic has reached these last three years though. Transcendent individual offense is more valuable than the type of play Mourning/Howard bring to the table. It is why Curry/Dirk/Bird/Jokic all have led teams to titles as the clear cut best player and guys like Mourning/Howard didn't.

And neither has a weakness as great as Jokic's subpar rim protection. But they're all great players; I just don't feel like there's a consistent methodology to classify, label, and segregate players into tiers. The more I've delved into the numbers side of things (box score, advanced, play-by-play) the less I'm sure about them. Eye test >.


- During that time...I'd rather have Dirk/Lebron/Wade/Kobe/Duncan over Howard. I'd also take KG before his injury in 09. So that is 5 or 6 guys. Could argue CP3 as well, but I'd rather have Howard. Which guys on that list was Howard a better player than?

That's cool. It comes down to what you value really. I said he had arguments for top 5 and top 3 over timeframes. Some big media outlets (SLAM, ESPN, SI) seemed to hold similar thoughts. But it's all subjective really.


Dirk was more inconsistent? He barely missed a game during that timeframe like Howard...off the top of my head...did something like 25/8/3 (59% TS) in the regular season...and something like 27/9/3 (62% TS) in the playoffs. Won 50 more each year...won 57 in 11 despite his team sucking without him on the court. Led a team to a title.

You talk about criteria like it is impossible. Dirk had great stats, led his team to solid regular seasons given the circumstances, upped his game in the playoffs, and led a team to the title. And somehow Howard was better? No, he wasn't...what you are doing is using Howard's superior supporting casts with him off the court to prop up some regular season metrics to ignore his actual performance in the most important games of his career.

Like I said above...you know who would have had better SRS ratings if their team didn't suck without them on the court? Dirk and Jokic. Just take 2009 Howard vs 2011 Dirk...what explains the SRS? Well, how about the fact that Howard's team was +2 points per 100 without him on the court and Dirk's team was -5.4 points per 100.

Then you come on here arguing...the Magic had a 6.48 SRS...and the Mavs had a 4.41 SRS...why? I'll tell you, again, the Magic were 7.4 points per 100 better without Howard than the Mavs were without Dirk. Despite that...Dirk still got them to 57 wins...and even worse for you, the Mavs went 2-7 in games Dirk didn't play.

Teams didn't win as much over the period as a whole I think. Too tired to check right now. His supporting cast looks alright. Lower SRS totals. I don't rate on/off numbers as mentioned multiple times in this post. Hell, Dwight's crazy foul pressure influenced the game even when he sat.

But it is what it is. You can lose your mind analyzing the never-ending conundrum of the numbers game. Trying to understand what does this mean what does that mean. All I said is that Dwight's got an argument for top 5 and top 3 for several years. Dirk probably does too I guess.


You remind me of Rose fans over-rating the shit out of his impact while ignoring how great the Bulls were without Rose on the court.

We saw how Rose going down killed Chicago's 2012 playoff chances. But we also saw how they remained a competitive team in 2013 and 2014 without him. Still, he seemed to elevate them from mid-tier East fodder to contender status.

But we really don't have a similar circumstance to gauge Dwight's value. The closest we have is that stretch to end 2012. Orlando was 33-21 (50-win pace) with Dwight; they went 4-8 to end the regular season. 5-12 if you include the playoffs.

Orlando went 9-16 without Dwight from 2008-2012. Comes out to 29.5 wins. But obviously, it's a small sample size over five seasons and not adjusted for strength of schedule or injuries. But it's the best we've got.

We can also look at how Orlando changed from 2012 to 2013. But there was also a change of coaches, new players going out and coming in, and injuries.


2011-2012 Orlando Magic
Off Rtg: 105.0 (15th of 30) Def Rtg: 104.1 (12th of 30)

2012-2013 Orlando Magic
Off Rtg: 101.6 (27th of 30) Def Rtg: 109.1 (25th of 30)

Differential: -3.4 Off Rtg and +5.0 Def Rtg


Whether you want to admit it or not...a huge reason for the SRS ratings of the Magic from 08 through 11 was the fact that Howard's team performed quite well with him off the court.

And that doesn't really tell me how valuable Dwight is or isn't to his team. Small sample size, not adjusted for lineups/substitution pattern/strength of opposing lineups, etc.


Lastly, I agree, comparing players is difficult. But when one guy plays all-time great in the biggest games of his career and leads a team to a title...and the other racks up some wins in the regular season and then plays some of his worst basketball in the biggest games of his career...I'll go with the guy that played better.

Again, this isn't hard.

Both are great players.

[Im Still Ballin]

Man, I've spent way too much time writing out these posts

[tpols]

Jokic "scalped" Edward's, KAT, Gobert, Durant, Booker, Paul, Lebron, AD, Butler and Bam.

Its honestly ridiculous for you to downplay what he did with this Nugget cast this year which opened up as huge underdogs. You're essentially penalizing him for making his teammates better and providing peak fit and chemistry as a superstar.

[Im Still Ballin]

Jokic "scalped" Edward's, KAT, Gobert, Durant, Booker, Paul, Lebron, AD, Butler and Bam.

Its honestly ridiculous for you to downplay what he did with this Nugget cast this year which opened up as huge underdogs. You're essentially penalizing him for making his teammates better and providing peak fit and chemistry as a superstar.

How strong were those teams though? That's the thing. Each team Denver faced is hard to gauge. I'm not saying those teams weren't strong opposition. It's just hard to get an accurate read because of injuries, late-season trades, and a play-in team causing multiple upsets.

I feel confident 2009 Cleveland and 2009 LA were stronger teams than any Denver beat though.

[ShawkFactory]

Jokic "scalped" Edward's, KAT, Gobert, Durant, Booker, Paul, Lebron, AD, Butler and Bam.

Its honestly ridiculous for you to downplay what he did with this Nugget cast this year which opened up as huge underdogs. You're essentially penalizing him for making his teammates better and providing peak fit and chemistry as a superstar.

Still with the opening odds thing?

If that’s your route, the only team they played with better preseason odds than them were the Suns.

[tpols]

How strong were those teams though? That's the thing. Each team Denver faced is hard to gauge. I'm not saying those teams weren't strong opposition. It's just hard to get an accurate read because of injuries, late-season trades, and a play-in team causing multiple upsets.

I feel confident 2009 Cleveland and 2009 LA were stronger teams than any Denver beat though.

Dwight didn't beat the 2009 Lakers though. He got crushed by them if we're being honest. His production was paltry for a superstar. 15 ppg.... imagine jokic doing that.

So your whole argument lies on 2009 Cleveland? I'd take the Suns and current Lakers over them. Yea Lebron was way better in 2009 but did he have an AD talent putting up 26/14 on elite efficiency like what happened in the 2023 WCFs? Ironically enough, that's a peak Dwight line. :lol

[SouBeachTalents]

Dwight didn't beat the 2009 Lakers though. He got crushed by them if we're being honest. His production was paltry for a superstar. 15 ppg.... imagine jokic doing that.

So your whole argument lies on 2009 Cleveland? I'd take the Suns and current Lakers over them. Yea Lebron was way better in 2009 but did he have an AD talent putting up 26/14 on 65%FG shooting like what happened in the 2023 WCFs? Ironically enough, that's a peak Dwight line. :lol
They won in 5 but Orlando was hardly crushed. They were literally a play away from winning Games 2 & 4, just one of those go differently thats’s an entirely different series.

[Im Still Ballin]

Dwight didn't beat the 2009 Lakers though. He got crushed by them if we're being honest. His production was paltry for a superstar. 15 ppg.... imagine jokic doing that.

So your whole argument lies on 2009 Cleveland? I'd take the Suns and current Lakers over them. Yea Lebron was way better in 2009 but did he have an AD talent putting up 26/14 on 65%FG shooting like what happened in the 2023 WCFs? Ironically enough, that's a peak Dwight line. :lol

Cleveland was 74-16 with an SRS between 9-10 before the ECF. They were one of the strongest "healthy" teams ever - until they played Orlando. Suddenly everyone pretends they sucked after that happened. Don't forget that Jameer Nelson was out injured.

This is a bigger scalp than any team Jokic has beaten in the playoffs.


Below I’ve indexed the top “healthy” teams — when all 25-minute per game players were in action for a game — since the shot clock (1955) by SRS (adjusted margin of victory). Using this criteria, 51 teams have posted at least an 8.0 SRS when healthy. Just 29 teams have eclipsed the 9.0 mark. (10 of those teams failed to win a title — well inline with what is predicted by the variability of a 7-game series.) The best are below, playoffs included:


https://thinkingbasketball.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Screen-Shot-2016-07-31-at-2.27.57-PM-554x1024.png

So a 74-16 team becomes trash the minute Orlando beats them? Come on. Give them their props.

[tpols]

They won in 5 but Orlando was hardly crushed. They were literally a play away from winning Games 2 & 4, just one of those go differently thats’s an entirely different series.

I never said Orlando was crushed. Dwight was. 15 ppg from a superstar doesn't cut it.

[Carbine]

If you truly believe that the 09 Cavs were a top 15 team of all time there's no point in going any further.

That was a seriously flawed team that just happened to have the greatest floor raising regular season player of all time. Those flaws were exposed against better teams.


I went through this with the Colts and Manning. He was such a tremendous floor raiser in the regular season masking the teams issues that we would have 12-4 or better every season with #1 seeds and lose early because those teams flaws get exposed by good teams.

[Im Still Ballin]

They won in 5 but Orlando was hardly crushed. They were literally a play away from winning Games 2 & 4, just one of those go differently thats’s an entirely different series.

Yeah, I've mentioned that several times but apparently it doesn't matter. We're talking a missed Courtney Lee layup that should've been called basket interference and two missed Dwight free throws while they were up 3 with like 15 seconds left.

Apparently, there was no way Orlando could've ever won a championship with Dwight Howard as its centerpiece.

[tpols]

Cleveland was 74-16 with an SRS between 9-10 before the ECF. They were one of the strongest "healthy" teams ever - until they played Orlando. Suddenly everyone pretends they sucked after that happened. Don't forget that Jameer Nelson was out injured.

This is a bigger scalp than any team Jokic has beaten in the playoffs.



https://thinkingbasketball.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Screen-Shot-2016-07-31-at-2.27.57-PM-554x1024.png

So a 74-16 team becomes trash the minute Orlando beats them? Come on. Give them their props.


Yeah, I've mentioned that several times but apparently it doesn't matter. We're talking a missed Courtney Lee layup that should've been called basket interference and two missed Dwight free throws while they were up 3 with like 15 seconds left.

Apparently, there was no way Orlando could've ever won a championship with Dwight Howard as its centerpiece.

That was never said at all. But if you want to compare dwight to a guy who scalped a whole gauntlet worth of star talent when Dwight himself shit the bed in the Finals to the tune of 15 ppg it isn't gonna fly. Especially when your only argument is him having to beat one good team before hand. The road to the ECFs in 2009 was a joke.

[Im Still Ballin]

That was never said at all. But if you want to compare dwight to a guy who scalped a whole gauntlet worth of star talent when Dwight himself shit the bed in the Finals to the tune of 15 ppg it isn't gonna fly. Especially when your only argument is him having to beat one good team before hand. The road to the ECFs in 2009 was a joke.

DMAVS said this:


My contention to you is that Howard wasn't capable of being the offensive engine of a team that actually wins the title...and so while you argue he's easy to build around, I'd argue that if you are trying for actually winning the title, finding him that offensive force is actually difficult.

[Im Still Ballin]

Did Jokic and Dwight face the same level of playoff competition? As I said, Dwight faced an easier first round. But from then on, it's probably Jokic who had the easier road.

[SouBeachTalents]

If you truly believe that the 09 Cavs were a top 15 team of all time there's no point in going any further.

That was a seriously flawed team that just happened to have the greatest floor raising regular season player of all time. Those flaws were exposed against better teams.


I went through this with the Colts and Manning. He was such a tremendous floor raiser in the regular season masking the teams issues that we would have 12-4 or better every season with #1 seeds and lose early because those teams flaws get exposed by good teams.
Eh, big difference is Peyton underperformed in the playoffs virtually every season, even the year they won he didn’t play that well outside of the title game.

[tpols]

DMAVS said this:

He might be right about that in terms of offensive engine but Dwight was easily good enough to win as best player on a team due to defense and rebounding and his offense still having a real nice ceiling. His skill deficit offensively hurt him against elite frontcourts, but I don't think anybody could deny his overall impact was elite. Just not top 20 GOAT level like Jokic or Dirk. If he averages only... 20 ppg in that Laker series the magic would've probably won given how close it was.

[tpols]

Did Jokic and Dwight face the same level of playoff competition? As I said, Dwight faced an easier first round. But from then on, it's probably Jokic who had the easier road.

Suns over injured Garnett-less Celtics? no way. Dwight averaged 17 ppg in that series vs Perkins and big baby Davis frontcourt. That's underwhelming.

[Im Still Ballin]

Suns over injured Celtics no way. Dwight averaged 17 ppg in that series vs Perkins and big baby Davis frontcourt. That's underwhelming.

Boston was 18-7 and won a playoff series without KG. That's more than a quarter of the season performing at a 58-win pace. Boston was a strong team without KG. And let us not forget that Jameer Nelson wasn't playing and Courtney Lee was not fully healthy.

Phoenix had a late-season trade. Like Boston, it's hard to gauge the team's strength. We don't know how good they really were because of sample size. Like Boston.

[SouBeachTalents]

Personally, if I were forced to play either team, I’m choosing the KG less Celtics & Cavs over the Suns & Lakers. ‘09 Lakers were for sure much better than the Heat though.

[tpols]

Boston was 18-7 and won a playoff series without KG. That's more than a quarter of the season performing at a 58-win pace. Boston was a strong team without KG. And let us not forget that Jameer Nelson wasn't playing and Courtney Lee was not fully healthy.

Phoenix had a late-season trade. Like Boston, it's hard to gauge the team's strength. We don't know how good they really were because of sample size. Like Boston.

If you look at top end talent? Pierce averaged 18 ppg. Next leading scorer was rondo at 14 ppg. Ray overall shit the bed shooting 34%FG and scoring less than rondo.

Book and Durant both averaged 30 on elite %.

Yea they didn't have as much depth but big baby and Perkins being your depth? That's gross.

The 2023 suns were easily the way more talented team.

[DMAVS41]

- I'm not going to judge it on one either...another strawman. I'm talking about the totality of his play...which includes that series. You, seemingly, one to exclude the most important series of his career...and that should be telling to you.

- I don't pretend the Cavs sucked...although they very clearly were not anything of note as a team...further evidenced by them flaming out again in 2010. I don't care what the SRS was of the Cavs...those Cavs weren't even any better than the Lakers that Jokic just swept out of the playoffs. You, again, are using SRS to heavily and ignoring reality. The reason why SRS is predictive for playoff success more often than not is that teams with multiple all-time greats and loaded teams tend to have the best SRS...you are looking at it in reverse...you are inflating the quality of the 09 Cavs because they ran through a weak conference and then using that to prove Dwight beat an all-time great team. When, in reality, the Cavs were nothing close to an all-time great team and the real great team in 09 that Dwight faced...he couldn't keep up. Sorry if you don't like it...but reality is what it is.

- I don't care what sample you are using. I'm telling you that Jokic didn't get better than prime/peak Dwight until the 21 season...so if you want to say in 20 that Jokic wasn't any better...I'll probably agree...or at least I won't argue much. Again, total non point and ignoring what I've said.

- You are aware of the many shortcomings of SRS? Yet you use it as your main point? Ok...

[DMAVS41]

- Sure they do...their "weakness" is not being a transcendent offensive force that makes their teammates significantly better on offense. Again, you aren't comparing Howard to Kristaps...you are favorably comparing him to a player that might go down as one of the 5 best offensive players ever. It absolutely is a weakness in comparison to guys like Jokic/Dirk/Curry/Bird...etc....you are discounting, in a huge way, what impact their offense has. And, again, funny how they've won and had way more success than Dwight did...

- I disagree about the net rating...it isn't a small sample actually...not sure where you get that...that is a 4 year sample for Dwight. It doesn't tell the whole story by any means...but it sure is better than just using SRS...or at least it should be used in conjunction with SRS if you are going to make these arguments.

- In this thread...you are asking what is the difference between prime Dwight and some other great players like Jokic. The answer is obvious...the difference is that Dwight can't be the offensive engine in a consistent or reliable enough way to lead a team to a title. The difference is that in the most important games...Dwight struggled...while a guy like Jokic flourished. It has been explained to you in terms of what is valuable in basketball from a skillset/impact way...and from a broad view of accomplishments way. The answer is there for you...you just have to accept it.

[DMAVS41]

He might be right about that in terms of offensive engine but Dwight was easily good enough to win as best player on a team due to defense and rebounding and his offense still having a real nice ceiling. His skill deficit offensively hurt him against elite frontcourts, but I don't think anybody could deny his overall impact was elite. Just not top 20 GOAT level like Jokic or Dirk. If he averages only... 20 ppg in that Laker series the magic would've probably won given how close it was.

Of course he could be the best player on a loaded team.

He could replace Ben Wallace and win in 04.

He really needs to stop acting like I'm calling Dwight a scrub. The question in this thread is Dwight vs other great players, mainly Jokic...what is the difference? That is obvious...the difference is that Dwight doesn't play offense or impact his teammates offensively the way a guy like Jokic did...and it isn't remotely close...and individual elite offense at that level...is simply more important than individual defense. The other difference is that Dwight did not play well in the biggest series of his career.

This should not be a debate anymore about offense vs defense. It is absolutely fair to debate Dirk vs KG...but forget Dirk...anyone here really arguing that KG was for sure better than Jokic? That it isn't even a question...KG was just for sure better? Nope, nobody will argue that....well, once one concedes that...it becomes clear...because of defense mattered as much as the Howard proponent wants...a guy like KG would be significantly better than the likes of Magic/Curry/Dirk/Jokic/Bird...etc...but we all know that isn't true.

Those are the obvious answers...and now it is just a refusal to accept them.

[Im Still Ballin]

If you look at top end talent? Pierce averaged 18 ppg. Next leading scorer was rondo at 14 ppg. Ray overall shit the bed shooting 34%FG and scoring less than rondo.

Book and Durant both averaged 30 on elite %.

Yea they didn't have as much depth but big baby and Perkins being your depth? That's gross.

The 2023 suns were easily the way more talented team.

I mean, it's very hard to compare numbers across eras. And we're talking about teams here, not players. But I'm fine with rating post-trade 2023 Phoenix over 18-7, one playoff series victory 2009 Boston. I'm just unsure of it because of the small sample size for both sides.


- I'm not going to judge it on one either...another strawman. I'm talking about the totality of his play...which includes that series. You, seemingly, one to exclude the most important series of his career...and that should be telling to you.

I don't exclude it. I just acknowledge that it's only five games and was against a very strong team. One of the strongest ever if you go by "when healthy" SRS.


- I don't pretend the Cavs sucked...although they very clearly were not anything of note as a team...further evidenced by them flaming out again in 2010. I don't care what the SRS was of the Cavs...those Cavs weren't even any better than the Lakers that Jokic just swept out of the playoffs. You, again, are using SRS to heavily and ignoring reality. The reason why SRS is predictive for playoff success more often than not is that teams with multiple all-time greats and loaded teams tend to have the best SRS...you are looking at it in reverse...you are inflating the quality of the 09 Cavs because they ran through a weak conference and then using that to prove Dwight beat an all-time great team. When, in reality, the Cavs were nothing close to an all-time great team and the real great team in 09 that Dwight faced...he couldn't keep up. Sorry if you don't like it...but reality is what it is.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.


- I don't care what sample you are using. I'm telling you that Jokic didn't get better than prime/peak Dwight until the 21 season...so if you want to say in 20 that Jokic wasn't any better...I'll probably agree...or at least I won't argue much. Again, total non point and ignoring what I've said.

Guess it comes back to that question of how we assign credit to individual players. Was Jokic any less important to his team in 2019 and 2020? Denver performed well and in line with 2021 and 2023. I just don't buy too much into box scores, advanced statistics, and play-by-play data.


- You are aware of the many shortcomings of SRS? Yet you use it as your main point? Ok...

Because SRS is the best single best metric for evaluating the performance of a team against its competition. It's not perfect but it's better than anything we have. I'm not sure what the most appropriate alternative would be. And it favors offensive-slanted teams that play at a faster pace. Orlando was one of the slowest in the league.


- Sure they do...their "weakness" is not being a transcendent offensive force that makes their teammates significantly better on offense. Again, you aren't comparing Howard to Kristaps...you are favorably comparing him to a player that might go down as one of the 5 best offensive players ever. It absolutely is a weakness in comparison to guys like Jokic/Dirk/Curry/Bird...etc....you are discounting, in a huge way, what impact their offense has. And, again, funny how they've won and had way more success than Dwight did...

I'm talking about the team. Orlando had elite half-court offenses built around Dwight's paint presence. Orlando was more balanced on both ends of the court compared to Denver. I think Dwight and Nikola are the primary reasons. Jokic's strengths are greater but so are his weaknesses. More of a glass cannon.


- I disagree about the net rating...it isn't a small sample actually...not sure where you get that...that is a 4 year sample for Dwight. It doesn't tell the whole story by any means...but it sure is better than just using SRS...or at least it should be used in conjunction with SRS if you are going to make these arguments.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I've learned to never put too much stock into box scores, advanced statistics, and play-by-play data. How a team plays with a player off the court isn't an accurate reflection of his value. Him not playing at all would be.

Lineups, rotations, and schemes; it's a bit like Jenga - take one block out and it all falls down.


- In this thread...you are asking what is the difference between prime Dwight and some other great players like Jokic. The answer is obvious...the difference is that Dwight can't be the offensive engine in a consistent or reliable enough way to lead a team to a title. The difference is that in the most important games...Dwight struggled...while a guy like Jokic flourished. It has been explained to you in terms of what is valuable in basketball from a skillset/impact way...and from a broad view of accomplishments way. The answer is there for you...you just have to accept it.

Did he? Dwight seemed to do fine in the 2009 ECF. Jokic has had a couple of slip-ups (2020 WCF; 2021 WCSF). 2022 doesn't seem fair to include because both the second and third-strongest players on the team were out injured.

And defense, rebounding, setting screens, and playing off the ball are elements that can't be easily seen in a box score. Dwight's impact is always going to go far beyond the stat sheets.


Of course he could be the best player on a loaded team.

He could replace Ben Wallace and win in 04.

He really needs to stop acting like I'm calling Dwight a scrub. The question in this thread is Dwight vs other great players, mainly Jokic...what is the difference? That is obvious...the difference is that Dwight doesn't play offense or impact his teammates offensively the way a guy like Jokic did...and it isn't remotely close...and individual elite offense at that level...is simply more important than individual defense. The other difference is that Dwight did not play well in the biggest series of his career.

And the same can be said on defense. But my contention is that Dwight's offense is less of an issue than Nikola's defense. But both teams proved that if you surrounded them with the right pieces you could get good results. Orlando had strong half-court offenses while Denver's defenses have been on average somewhere between average and above average.


This should not be a debate anymore about offense vs defense. It is absolutely fair to debate Dirk vs KG...but forget Dirk...anyone here really arguing that KG was for sure better than Jokic? That it isn't even a question...KG was just for sure better? Nope, nobody will argue that....well, once one concedes that...it becomes clear...because of defense mattered as much as the Howard proponent wants...a guy like KG would be significantly better than the likes of Magic/Curry/Dirk/Jokic/Bird...etc...but we all know that isn't true.

Those are the obvious answers...and now it is just a refusal to accept them.

I'd caution against analyzing and discussing basketball as binary/segregated with regard to offense and defense. Separating the two. It is a flawed way of looking at things. Just like how environmental factors are always influencing genetics, offense and defense affect each other.

There is definitely something to be said about having balance on both ends of the court.

[DMAVS41]

- Exactly...and that is part of the answer about what is the difference. Do you really not understand that? A major difference in Dwight and Jokic/Dirk, for example, during the times we are comparing...is that Jokic/Dirk played great when it mattered most. In Dirk's case...he played way tougher competition than Howard overall, and came through much better. Again, big difference. In addition, I'm arguing that the skillset and strengths of guys like Jokic/Dirk/Curry/Bird...are more valuable and reliable for winning and getting the most out of teammates...which led to their ability to come through.

- Jokic is clearly a better player now than he was in 19 or 20. You are confusing yourself or are pretending to play dumb. There isn't a person in the world than thinks Jokic has not improved since then.

- Cool, but if you go back and look at the historical criteria almost always needed to be a great playoff team and title winning team...the team is not a single star team with a 15 ppg 2nd option that doesn't defend well...and scores inefficiently like Mo Williams. You are just latching onto this SRS for some reason...even though you rightly say it is flawed. Do you really think how many points a team like the Cavs beat the bad teams by in the regular season is really such a great barometer of how they'll play in the playoffs against the best teams? As I said before, you are looking at it backwards.

- SRS is fine as long as it is used with context and nuance...and the other factors aren't ignored. For example, in the playoffs, winning with Mo Williams or Jason Terry is extremely difficult historically...but racking up regular season wins and differentials is far easier with certain teams around them. You only focus on SRS and not the actual team strength for the playoffs because of your bias.

- When you say "elite"...you are back to only looking at it through an extremely narrow lens. Overall ratings, especially in the regular season, do not tell the entire story. Dwight's offensive skillset puts a much lower ceiling on a team's offense if he is the best offensive player. Again, we saw this play out.

- Net Rating absolutely has value over a 4 year sample. It shows how much impact a star player has on said team...and what the team is capable of without said star player. Again, no single metric is perfect. It also adds so much necessary context to SRS...as SRS is largely determined by the supporting cast strength in the regular season as differential is weighed...and so when you combine the wins, SRS, and Net Ratings...it starts to paint a more accurate picture...but you don't do that because it hurts your argument. Again, you are biased.

- Yes, he did. You have asked about the difference...and a big one is coming through in the finals. Jokic did. Dwight did not. I'm not sure why this is confusing to you. It is a simple fact you can't accept I guess.

- I know your contention. It is dead wrong...really it is provably wrong or factually wrong. Around Jokic...the Nuggets were able to build an all-time elite offense when Jokic is on the court...that also was the best in the playoffs. At no point in time over any real sample...was Dwight able to do that. Conversely, while the Magic built great defenses around Dwight...the Nuggets also were able to build really good defense around Jokic. Again, to take the two deep playoffs runs...the Nuggets had the clear best offense and the 3rd best defense. In 09, the Magic had the 5th best offense and the 3rd best defense. Again, Dwight's skillset and impact as the best offensive player...will prevent a team from having the caliber of offense a Dirk/Jokic/Bird/Curry led team will have....but won't necessarily have a considerably better defense. Again, these are facts...you can't just ignore them.

- Non answer and you are doing just that actually. You are arguing that Dwight's defense is so important that it trumps the better offense of Jokic....and I'm just rightly pushing back against that...and you know you are wrong here. You know that KG was not demonstrably better than Dirk or Jokic or Curry....if that is true, which we all know it to be true...how on earth is that "balance" you speak of as important as you claim? KG was a great offensive player and one of the best defensive players ever...why wasn't he clearly better than Jokic???? You are on here claiming that Jokic's defense is a huge negative and problem for him individually and teams. How was KG not way better than Magic? If individual defense matters as much as you claim...KG should be a better player. Again, you know that to be false...but you are at the point where you can't just admit that all-time great offense is more important than all-time great defense at the level of player we are discussing.