HeartBreakKid wrote:You can absolutely be more skilled than someone and still be a worse player.
Jokic is more skilled than Duncan because he has better shooting, passing, handles and has a similar knowledge on post moves among other skills that he matches Duncan.
Duncan is a better player because his basketball IQ is just as high as Jokic's, and he is way more athletic. Duncan still has a ton of skill, so his athleticism pushes him over Jokic. Tim Duncan is better than Jokic because he is a much better defender than Jokic and a lot of that comes from his physical advantages and basketball IQ. Tim Duncan is so much more athletic than Jokic it's not even funny - people do not remember how well Duncan moved in 99. Heck, even as an old man he is more coordinated than Jokic is.
I get the impression that a lot of people think guys like Duncan and Kareem are not athletic beasts...they are legitimate 7 footers (even taller for Kareem) who move incredibly well and fluid. I think there is this notion if players aren't ripped with sweaty muscles they are not stellar athletes, or guys who play very long until they are old people tend to remember them in that form. Duncan, Kareem and Olajuwon were all PHYSICAL mismatches - if you did not have a big who could match them physically, you are essentially at their mercy, which is what makes them so good.
Some people though have a hard time not seeing extremes. If I say something like Duncan dominated people because of his size, people will take that as if I am saying Duncan is not skilled. There is middle ground..
I mean you are basically saying athleticism and size are not factors in how great players are. Steve Nash isn't any less skilled than Michael Jordan, doesn't mean that he is as good as him. Dwight Howard isn't more skilled than Joel Embiid or Yao Ming, but you could make a very strong argument he is a better player.
To add onto this, Tim Duncan past his prime was still an all-star caliber player, but he was not better than Jokic currently is - ditto with old Kareem (depending on which years we are talking about). The only thing that changed is that they got older and slower.
Saying that it is impossible to say that Jokic is more skilled than Duncan because he is a worse player is the same exact thing as saying that athleticism doesn't matter or Jokic is not less athletic than Duncan. You cannot rationalize it any other way.
The problem with this is that once you try to completely separate skill and athleticism you realize that the "pure skill" guys themselves have some bodily advantage that can easily be interpreted as athleticism. All your Jokics, Nashes, Currys etc have at least insane hand eye coordination, and some other stuff that puts them ahead of others. Curry's stamina, shooting touch and handles are clearly not things you learn. Nash has the world record for the beep test last time I checked. Yes these guys are worse athletes than the GOATs, but by the same token they're better athletes than your typical Ricky Rubio or Joe Harris.
The question then becomes : where do you stop if you follow this "skill" rabbit hole? Who are the truly skilled players? You're more likely to end up with some scrub in Lithuania who has the purest skillset but can't make any league because he can't jump higher than 1 foot or complete a 100 m footrace.
