Knicks · who's better Larry Bird or Nikola Jokic? (page 2)

SergioNYK wrote:I did not see Bird in his prime but I've seen all those old Celtics/Lakers game and he was GREAT. Jokic is great too but he's got to get two more rings.

Which I think he will.

But comparing players from the 80s to today is so dumb imo. The game is completely different. Players today have better training, better coaching, individual coaching, diet, ect.

Youre right about eras/ The 80s MUCH more physical. Larry Bird was one of a kind a superstar but Jokic(2nd rd pick) is a quiet chubby serbian who has more skills than t any big man of all time. He avg a triple double and won a championship with other players who are not stars. Jokic is so good we just dont understand it because he plays like hes throwing knuckleballs.

BigDaddyG wrote:<snip>
I have to agree. Jokic has to do more for me to put him ahead of Bird. It becomes a different conversation if Joker continues at this pace tho. Another question I'll pose. What more does Giannis has to do to break into the Duncan, Nowitzki and Garnett conversation? I suppose Barkley and Malone should also be in the conversation, but I think the lack of a title hurts them.

Hmm. The point on Giannis vs those those 3 is fascinating. Sure, he doesn't have longevity yet, but his last 6 seasons measure up well (or surpass) Duncan, Dirk, and KG's best 6. I'd say there's a fair debate that he has already surpassed Dirk and KG by virtue of his 2 MVPs - he's more dominant than either of those two, I think. Duncan had an extreme winner's resume, though, with 2 regular season MVPs, 5 rings, and 3 Finals MVPs. He also had a killer support cast for most of career - his career stats look like he had the luxury of not having to carry his team by age 27. When other players' numbers spike around that time, he leveled down about 10-20% across the board for the next 5 years through age 32. He took it down another notch over the next 6 years.

Back to Bird vs Jokic, Bird dealt with some pretty debilitating back issues for much of his career yet played through them. By today's standards he a serious ironman. For the first 9 years of his career (age 23-31), he averaged 79 games played per season, playing 82 games 3 times, with a lowest game total of 74. While he may have played some short games to help his totals, he still averaged well over 38mpg during that span.

In comparison, Jokic played only 69 games this season. (MVP runner up only played 66 games)

I think the Jokic/Bird comparison is pretty fascinating - there's an abundance of heady plays/court vision, unlikely shots, and deft passing. It could easily be about Jokic vs Magic Johnson. Is Jokic better than Magic? Magic had killer assists, but never was the scorer or rebounder Jokic is.

I've already exceeded a reasonable # of talking points here, but Jokic's brilliance really is his economy of movement. Of all the players mentioned here, I bet Jokic runs the fewest distance over the course of a game. Bird moved without the ball like Reggie Miller - corner to corner, always moving. Jokic has a way of getting the ball whenever he wants it, maybe shifting over a few feet. And basically averaged a triple double while being one of the least athletic/fast twitch players on the floor. I wouldn't be surprised if our other most recent triple double machine, Russell Westbrook, covered 3x as much distance over the course of a game with his absurd athleticism and motor.

Wilt had just two chips but firmly planted in Mount Rushmore. He there with Jordan, Lebron, Kareem and Bill Russell. Bird, Magic, kobe, Dr J, Barkley, Baylor, Reed, Clyde, Ewing, Hakeem, and I’ll put Two time MVP Jokic there too. MVPs matter on this second Tier. There are others. Luka might be better than Bird but that’s yet to be determined.
Bird vs Jokic? Fundamentally high IQ sound white players comparison. Larry was 3x league MVP. Jokic 2x. Different positions and eras but same neighborhood.

Nalod wrote:White guy to white guy comp? One is a center, the other a SF! Why do we do this?

Thank you Nalod. The only thing that makes them similar is both are melanin deficient.

I’m not sure there is one player you can compare him with. You probably need 2 or 3 players. Dude is just different.

BRIGGS wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:I did not see Bird in his prime but I've seen all those old Celtics/Lakers game and he was GREAT. Jokic is great too but he's got to get two more rings.

Which I think he will.

But comparing players from the 80s to today is so dumb imo. The game is completely different. Players today have better training, better coaching, individual coaching, diet, ect.

Youre right about eras/ The 80s MUCH more physical. Larry Bird was one of a kind a superstar but Jokic(2nd rd pick) is a quiet chubby serbian who has more skills than t any big man of all time. He avg a triple double and won a championship with other players who are not stars. Jokic is so good we just dont understand it because he plays like hes throwing knuckleballs.

Murray, Porter JR and Aaron Gordan are about as good as you get for options 2,3 and 4.

blkexec wrote:

Nalod wrote:White guy to white guy comp? One is a center, the other a SF! Why do we do this?

Thank you Nalod. The only thing that makes them similar is both are melanin deficient.

I’m not sure there is one player you can compare him with. You probably need 2 or 3 players. Dude is just different.

Jokic is very unique given his range. 6-11 dirk did not have that kind of range but also a different era. New era and new king of 5.

Bird kept making tougher and tougher shots. Not hard to see why his back gave out. Really had to contort himself on some of those drives, to get a shot off.

GustavBahler wrote:Bird kept making tougher and tougher shots. Not hard to see why his back gave out. Really had to contort himself on some of those drives, to get a shot off.

If I remember the story correctly, I think he said the damage started when he cheaped out and decided to do yard work instead of paying someone. I think he said it on the Bird/Magic documentary that was on HBO.

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Bird kept making tougher and tougher shots. Not hard to see why his back gave out. Really had to contort himself on some of those drives, to get a shot off.

If I remember the story correctly, I think he said the damage started when he cheaped out and decided to do yard work instead of paying someone. I think he said it on the Bird/Magic documentary that was on HBO.

Was kinda close. From his Wikipedia entry:

During the 1985 offseason, Bird injured his back shoveling crushed rock to create a driveway at his mother's house. At least partially as a result of this, he experienced back problems for the remainder of his career.[49]

BigDaddyG wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Bird kept making tougher and tougher shots. Not hard to see why his back gave out. Really had to contort himself on some of those drives, to get a shot off.

If I remember the story correctly, I think he said the damage started when he cheaped out and decided to do yard work instead of paying someone. I think he said it on the Bird/Magic documentary that was on HBO.

Was kinda close. From his Wikipedia entry:

During the 1985 offseason, Bird injured his back shoveling crushed rock to create a driveway at his mother's house. At least partially as a result of this, he experienced back problems for the remainder of his career.[49]

And a coworker argued with me that I will get exercise from doing my yard. Nope. Pay someone for the low and just stick to old man half court basketball.

Kareem fundamentally was incredible and why he played into his 40’s. Could he have had the range of given the chance? Great passer from low post. It’s where the 5 were dominating then.
Rumor was pre NBA Aryvetas Sabonis had range and passing. He got to NBA past his prime. Will never know. Jokic is an evolution of fundamentals.

BRIGGS wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:I did not see Bird in his prime but I've seen all those old Celtics/Lakers game and he was GREAT. Jokic is great too but he's got to get two more rings.

Which I think he will.

But comparing players from the 80s to today is so dumb imo. The game is completely different. Players today have better training, better coaching, individual coaching, diet, ect.

Youre right about eras/ The 80s MUCH more physical. Larry Bird was one of a kind a superstar but Jokic(2nd rd pick) is a quiet chubby serbian who has more skills than t any big man of all time. He avg a triple double and won a championship with other players who are not stars. Jokic is so good we just dont understand it because he plays like hes throwing knuckleballs.

The quality of the basketball was better in the 80’s and 90’s. The nba today is all about 3 point shooting and fast breaks due to rule changes in the early 2000’s to pump up scoring and favor the offense.

Bird and Jokic play different positions. A more apt comparison would be Olajuwon or Patrick to Jokic

Philc1 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:I did not see Bird in his prime but I've seen all those old Celtics/Lakers game and he was GREAT. Jokic is great too but he's got to get two more rings.

Which I think he will.

But comparing players from the 80s to today is so dumb imo. The game is completely different. Players today have better training, better coaching, individual coaching, diet, ect.

Youre right about eras/ The 80s MUCH more physical. Larry Bird was one of a kind a superstar but Jokic(2nd rd pick) is a quiet chubby serbian who has more skills than t any big man of all time. He avg a triple double and won a championship with other players who are not stars. Jokic is so good we just dont understand it because he plays like hes throwing knuckleballs.

The quality of the basketball was better in the 80s and 90;s. The nba today is all about 3 point shooting and fast breaks due to rule changes in the early 2000;s to pump up scoring and favor the offense.

Bird and Jokic play different positions. A more apt comparison would be Olajuwon or Patrick to Jokic

Love Patrick but you can't compare court vision. Patrick had none. He only passed the ball out of the post to demand it back again. He was a bit of a black hole

Panos wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:I did not see Bird in his prime but I've seen all those old Celtics/Lakers game and he was GREAT. Jokic is great too but he's got to get two more rings.

Which I think he will.

But comparing players from the 80s to today is so dumb imo. The game is completely different. Players today have better training, better coaching, individual coaching, diet, ect.

Youre right about eras/ The 80s MUCH more physical. Larry Bird was one of a kind a superstar but Jokic(2nd rd pick) is a quiet chubby serbian who has more skills than t any big man of all time. He avg a triple double and won a championship with other players who are not stars. Jokic is so good we just dont understand it because he plays like hes throwing knuckleballs.

The quality of the basketball was better in the 80s and 90;s. The nba today is all about 3 point shooting and fast breaks due to rule changes in the early 2000;s to pump up scoring and favor the offense.

Bird and Jokic play different positions. A more apt comparison would be Olajuwon or Patrick to Jokic

Love Patrick but you can't compare court vision. Patrick had none. He only passed the ball out of the post to demand it back again. He was a bit of a black hole

I remember reading a story about Don Nelson walking up to Ewing, and talking to him about working on how to pass out of a double team, be a better distributor. And Patrick just walked away from him without saying a word.

It has to be Larry. Larry is an all time top 10 player, Jokic probably won't be considered a top 5 center of all time ever.

Jokic is great but he has the luxury of being the only elite center in an era with no bigs and a lot of emphasis on spacing out and shooting from deep.

wow what a great question. My goodness I've always said larry doesn't get enough respect when fans and media discuss top players of all time. I agree with Danger he broke my heart many a times, but he earned everyones respect as a great one.

But and its funny two guys that actually don't move fast on the court that may be two of the top 5 passers ever, great, great question.

One thing besides the era that stands out is larry actually played really good defense, younger fans may not even know this but anyone who watch him play he really defended well without the big time rep for it.

Larry playing SF even at age 35 is pretty impressive as well for a guy 6'9.

I'm a huge Bird fan yes even as a Knick fan you have to appreciated greatness, but I'm not even going to pretend to make this call. Joker is just not human at times. I don't think he's done with MVP votes either but we shall see, he is special.

Jokic is in the HOF. 2x MVP.
He is 28. Celtics were a great team.
Jokic is a great player on a very very good team.

GustavBahler wrote:

Panos wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:I did not see Bird in his prime but I've seen all those old Celtics/Lakers game and he was GREAT. Jokic is great too but he's got to get two more rings.

Which I think he will.

But comparing players from the 80s to today is so dumb imo. The game is completely different. Players today have better training, better coaching, individual coaching, diet, ect.

Youre right about eras/ The 80s MUCH more physical. Larry Bird was one of a kind a superstar but Jokic(2nd rd pick) is a quiet chubby serbian who has more skills than t any big man of all time. He avg a triple double and won a championship with other players who are not stars. Jokic is so good we just dont understand it because he plays like hes throwing knuckleballs.

The quality of the basketball was better in the 80s and 90;s. The nba today is all about 3 point shooting and fast breaks due to rule changes in the early 2000;s to pump up scoring and favor the offense.

Bird and Jokic play different positions. A more apt comparison would be Olajuwon or Patrick to Jokic

Love Patrick but you can't compare court vision. Patrick had none. He only passed the ball out of the post to demand it back again. He was a bit of a black hole

I remember reading a story about Don Nelson walking up to Ewing, and talking to him about working on how to pass out of a double team, be a better distributor. And Patrick just walked away from him without saying a word.

People talk about the FO’s failure to give Patrick the cast to win a chip, but Patrick didn’t necessarily help the situation by failing to facilitate the offense or to make others better.

Nalod wrote:Jokic is in the HOF. 2x MVP.
He is 28. Celtics were a great team.
Jokic is a great player on a very very good team.

But is he better than Bird? I mean in a sense of playing pick up and the two captains were Bird and Jokic. With a bunch of PUG players. Whose team would you want to play/bet on?

ramtour420 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Jokic is in the HOF. 2x MVP.
He is 28. Celtics were a great team.
Jokic is a great player on a very very good team.

But is he better than Bird? I mean in a sense of playing pick up and the two captains were Bird and Jokic. With a bunch of PUG players. Whose team would you want to play/bet on?

If it’s h-o-r-s-e I bet Bird all day

Panos wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:I did not see Bird in his prime but I've seen all those old Celtics/Lakers game and he was GREAT. Jokic is great too but he's got to get two more rings.

Which I think he will.

But comparing players from the 80s to today is so dumb imo. The game is completely different. Players today have better training, better coaching, individual coaching, diet, ect.

Youre right about eras/ The 80s MUCH more physical. Larry Bird was one of a kind a superstar but Jokic(2nd rd pick) is a quiet chubby serbian who has more skills than t any big man of all time. He avg a triple double and won a championship with other players who are not stars. Jokic is so good we just dont understand it because he plays like hes throwing knuckleballs.

The quality of the basketball was better in the 80s and 90;s. The nba today is all about 3 point shooting and fast breaks due to rule changes in the early 2000;s to pump up scoring and favor the offense.

Bird and Jokic play different positions. A more apt comparison would be Olajuwon or Patrick to Jokic

Love Patrick but you can't compare court vision. Patrick had none. He only passed the ball out of the post to demand it back again. He was a bit of a black hole

Yes I agree Jokic > Ewing. One has a ring the other doesn’t although the refs made sure no one not named Jordan could win a championship when no Pat was in his absolute prime with best supporting cast