‘01 Tim Duncan vs ‘22 Nikola Jokic

[migya]

Don't know what reasoning there is for saying Duncan wasn't great offensively. He had a truck load of moves, could shoot and pass. For the grinding era with tough defenses he was great.

[tsherkin]

Don't know what reasoning there is for saying Duncan wasn't great offensively. He had a truck load of moves, could shoot and pass. For the grinding era with tough defenses he was great.

His efficiency wasn't amazing, his impact stats aren't amazing... literally nothing about his statistical impact suggests that he was a particularly amazing offensive player. At his peak, he was... you know, solid to strong. Certainly not an ATG offensive player but still pretty good and given the dearth of quality in the early to mid 2000s, that was a big deal. But ultimately worse than the top-end of perimeter star players in his own era. Certainly a lot worse than Lebron, Kobe and McGrady, Wade, etc, etc, etc (on O, specifically).

He wasn't great offensively. There's nothing to suggest this. He was highly fundamental, but that didn't translate to offensive efficacy at a level that matters relative to the top end of NBA players in his own career or overall. He was solid, but definitely not first tier, even in-era.

[migya]

Don't know what reasoning there is for saying Duncan wasn't great offensively. He had a truck load of moves, could shoot and pass. For the grinding era with tough defenses he was great.

His efficiency wasn't amazing, his impact stats aren't amazing... literally nothing about his statistical impact suggests that he was a particularly amazing offensive player. At his peak, he was... you know, solid to strong. Certainly not an ATG offensive player but still pretty good and given the dearth of quality in the early to mid 2000s, that was a big deal. But ultimately worse than the top-end of perimeter star players in his own era. Certainly a lot worse than Lebron, Kobe and McGrady, Wade, etc, etc, etc (on O, specifically).

He wasn't great offensively. There's nothing to suggest this. He was highly fundamental, but that didn't translate to offensive efficacy at a level that matters relative to the top end of NBA players in his own career or overall. He was solid, but definitely not first tier, even in-era.

Besides Robinson, who was over 35 at that point and falling off offensively, the Spurs had noone that year. Avery was below average scorer for a PG in his era, Elie couldn't create much and was a set shooter in lowish volume, Elliott was deteriorating as well and the bench was old with limited players. Duncan was the offense and they won.

[tsherkin]

Besides Robinson, who was over 35 at that point and falling off offensively, the Spurs had noone that year. Avery was below average scorer for a PG in his era, Elie couldn't create much and was a set shooter in lowish volume, Elliott was deteriorating as well and the bench was old with limited players. Duncan was the offense and they won.

In 2003 specifically, sure. But that was far from the only year where Duncan was unimpressive offensively, so it isn't really a relevant comment.

[AEnigma]

I think you undersell Duncan’s ability to defend the perimetre, and although much of his defensive paint presence would be mitigated in the modern era, it is not as if he would not find scoring and passing reads easier today.

Duncan would still be good today, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. However, his mobility was not sufficiently amazing enough compared to his own peer Kevin Garnett to suggest that he'd be some savant working against the PnR, which is CONSIDERABLY more common in today's game than even a decade ago, let alone a decade and a half or twenty years ago. It's not a surprise that a classic big man would get exposed by smaller dudes switching out on him and exploiting screens, that's just how it works unless they are freak athletes.

But you do not need to literally be Garnett to be an elite and consistently impactful defender as a big man. Yeah, he loses value, but he is still a genius defender who would be the second best rim protector in the league and has enough of an offensive game to punish teams trying to go full smallball against him.

And even to the extent we want to say that Duncan loses more defensively than he gains offensively — probably true

Unquestionably true. He was a 69.6% FT shooter who could barely shoot past 15 feet and wasn't a particularly efficient scorer or a revolutionary playmaker from his position. He really wasn't a stunning offensive player by any measure at all, honestly. Decent, sure, but like, definitely not the guy you WANTED as your offensive anchor compared to so very many wing players even in-era. Defense and rebounding were his jam and as the Spurs evolved, they deprioritized him, which was a sensible move more than just for his advancing age and minutes management. Duncan was not an all-league offensive player. That wasn't what made him incredible.

Sure, but this is not an era where that would ever be the role hoisted onto him, which is partly my point. I would love him as a third scorer and like him as a second scorer, and honestly there are still only a few big man passers right now I think contribute more to team offence. Again, this would be a top three defender with a legitimate offensive game. He does not need to score like Embiid or Giannis to be on par with or better than them overall, and again the implications here seem much bolder what I think the common base level “rankings” would be.

— I have an easier time envisioning a title roster built around that profile than I do for Jokic because of the likelihood of them encountering a team capable of fully exploiting his defensive limitations. All of which assumes that the prompt here is taking them solely in the modern league rather than relative to their own leagues (Duncan a clear and essentially indisputable second by all non-Kobe-fanatics) or as a sort of absolute average expected value across different eras (imo historically one favouring Duncan’s archetype).

Duncan was hot in his own league, no doubt. But cross-era comparisons are problematic for a reason, you know? Yeah, Duncan had advantages as far as when he played, relative to Jokic. But would of course always be a better defender in any era. But his offense would be basically dog crap today. He wasn't even a stunner in his own era, and that was in a grinder, depressed-O era.

Yeah I just disagree with that, he was an objectively capable big man scorer and offensive weapon and that is still desired. If Gobert had his offensive game the Jazz probably win a title or two. I do not need him to anchor an offence when every team has multiple guys who can do that better than uh Antonio Daniels.

Breezing past Shaq is interesting though. Do you prefer Jokic in today’s game? I could get there myself by virtue of being lower on Shaq than most, but I imagine doing something like 2004 Shaq versus 2022 Jokic would see significantly different poll results from the collective.

I didn't "breeze past" Shaq, I focused on the actual discussion topics because he isn't the subject of this thread.

It is a comparisons forum, and Shaq is the more natural comparison to Jokic when considering Jokic’s case against Duncan (and vice versa). If you want to say Jokic is just Shaq with all-time passing, you should say so, and then that would immediately make the advantage obvious for a season where Duncan was second fiddle to Shaq.

[70sFan]

I’d rather have Jokic. Jokic has his issues, but I don’t think Duncan’s offense was at a high enough level to be better overall. The reason his 02 and 03 season are so hard to top is because he was combining borderline elite offense with all time great defense. 01 is like DPOY level with merely “good” offense. Generally too I think it’s just hard to look past how the Lakers just completely ran over Duncan and the Spurs in that sweep and Duncan himself performed really poorly offensively in those last 2 games.

Is there any reason why you think Duncan wasn't all-time great defensively in 2001?

Duncan played poorly in the last two games, but he played like the best player in the world in the first two and it didn't matter. Jokic also had some mediocre games against Warriors in the playoffs, but you don't hold it against him.

He bad 1 poor one, and the last 3 were insanely good.

They were insanely good offensively, but still horrible defensively. It seems that you don't take defense into account. Duncan wasn't poor on defense in the last two games of 2001 WCF either.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

I’d rather have Jokic. Jokic has his issues, but I don’t think Duncan’s offense was at a high enough level to be better overall. The reason his 02 and 03 season are so hard to top is because he was combining borderline elite offense with all time great defense. 01 is like DPOY level with merely “good” offense. Generally too I think it’s just hard to look past how the Lakers just completely ran over Duncan and the Spurs in that sweep and Duncan himself performed really poorly offensively in those last 2 games.

There isn't a single player in NBA history any stage of their careers at any position that would've won the Spurs even ONE game vs.....THAT Lakers team.

Kobe was running circles around their woeful perimeter defense.

Duncan averaged 34ppg 14 rpg 4 big 5 asts in the first 2 games and the Spurs still lost.

[70sFan]

I’d rather have Jokic. Jokic has his issues, but I don’t think Duncan’s offense was at a high enough level to be better overall. The reason his 02 and 03 season are so hard to top is because he was combining borderline elite offense with all time great defense. 01 is like DPOY level with merely “good” offense. Generally too I think it’s just hard to look past how the Lakers just completely ran over Duncan and the Spurs in that sweep and Duncan himself performed really poorly offensively in those last 2 games.

There isn't a single player in NBA history any stage of their careers at any position that would've won the Spurs even ONE game vs.....THAT Lakers team.

Kobe was running circles around their woeful perimeter defense.

Duncan averaged 34ppg 14 rpg 4 big 5 asts in the first 2 games and the Spurs still lost.

I don't think people realize that Duncan literally scored half of Spurs points in one of these games, while being the best defender on the court. How can you expect anything else from him?

[Texas Chuck]

I like Jokic, but he gets so much of a pass for that series lol. Not even bringing defense into it, he only played 5 games and was well below his usual offensive level in 2 of them. He was fantastic in the last 3 games, but I'm not sure when underperforming in 40% of the games you played became "thoroughly dominating"

i've seen this argument and before and just...no.


Putting up 30 points on nearly 60 FG% against the best defense is dominating dude. Saying he played poorly 40% of the series which equates to a whopping 2 games is sample size exploitation. You're fully aware it's exploitation too which is why you cited the %.

There is way more precedent to suggest that his statline is indicintive to the way he plays then him just being lucky with the small sample size.

Long story short, struggling in 2 games in a 5 game series does not mean you did not dominate.

If we are using that series as an argument AGAINST Jokic's offense then that greatly shows how amazing he is on offense, ironically enough. That's an incredibly high standard.

The problem is a playoff series is always a small sample size by definition. I used to defend Dirk in the 07 series against GSW because he was only bad in 2 games. But if you gift your opponent 2 games by playing that poorly, you really cripple your team's chances to win the series.

Speaking only to the sample size issue here---not weighing in on Jokic's series specifically. Not my argument.

[No-more-rings]

And how did it go for Jokic this past postseason? Why is that easy to look past?

What’s there to look past? Jokic thoroughly dominated them offensively.

And it in no way came close for making up how even more thoroughly they were obliterated on defence. Which maybe you could look past if the Warriors did that to everyone like the 2001 Lakers did, or if it were an outlier bad result for a Jokic-led defence like it was for the 2001 Spurs, but they did not and it was not.

You repeating this argument over and over doesn’t make it true.

Saying Jokic got “destroyed on defense”’ignores that the Warriors were a great offensive team who got hot at the right time, and that there’s 4 other players on the court with Jokic that can share blame for that.

You can name plenty of examples of people who actually are great defenders and their team still gets shredded on defense. Duncan included.

I know you’ll point to the Warriors points or ORTG, but we can just as easily say that the Spurs had a very bad 90 ORTG. Does that mean Duncan had a terrible series on offense? You can’t have it both ways no matter how bad you want to.

I can’t think of many if any players who can put up an elite offensive performance against the best ranked defense, while simultaneously shutting the other teams down. Maybe the goat bigs, which Jokic is not but neither is 01 Duncan given his offensive limitations.

Jokic basically carries the offense like a guard would, we’ve never quite seen that before.

It’s just a little strange to me that Jokic is held to standards we’ve never seen with another center. He’s being expected to have both guard like impact on offense, and apparently elite center defensive impact.

Why?

[70sFan]

Saying Jokic got “destroyed on defense”’ignores that the Warriors were a great offensive team who got hot at the right time, and that there’s 4 other players on the court with Jokic that can share blame for that.

You can name plenty of examples of people who actually are great defenders and their team still gets shredded on defense. Duncan included.

I know you’ll point to the Warriors points or ORTG, but we can just as easily say that the Spurs had a very bad 90 ORTG. Does that mean Duncan had a terrible series on offense? You can’t have it both ways no matter how bad you want to.

Well, the difference is that Duncan didn't play badly on offense in most of the series and he certainly wasn't a problem. Warriors dominated Nuggets defensively in big part because of his offensive limitations.

Jokic basically carries the offense like a guard would, we’ve never quite seen that before.

It’s just a little strange to me that Jokic is held to standards we’ve never seen with another center. He’s being expected to have both guard like impact on offense, and apparently elite center defensive impact.

Why?

I don't think anyone is waiting for Jokic shutting down ATG offense, but it would be nice if he starts to show some resistance against any quality offense faced in the playoffs. For now, it's very easy to attack Jokic on defense and Nuggets/Jokic have to do something to prevent from that. It would be nice if all we have is Warriors dominating him, but he also looked bad against Blazers and Suns in 2021.

Jokic doesn't have to be elite defender to be ranked ahead of Duncan, but he has to do more in the playoffs.

[tsherkin]

But you do not need to literally be Garnett to be an elite and consistently impactful defender as a big man. Yeah, he loses value, but he is still a genius defender who would be the second best rim protector in the league and has enough of an offensive game to punish teams trying to go full smallball against him.

100%. And as I already said, I acknowledge that Duncan would still be a good defender in today's league. But you specifically addressed PnR defense, and Duncan's would be exploited more today than it was in his own time, lessening the overall gap you're trying to portray here. Duncan was clearly a significantly better defender than Jokic, but the degree to which that gap exists lessens forward in league history, and the offensive gap is MAAAAAAASSIVE.

Sure, but this is not an era where that would ever be the role hoisted onto him, which is partly my point.

Sure, but the lessened primacy also changes the overall profile of him as a player. He becomes more Rudy Gobert than "focal superstar" as he was during his first couple titles, to a sufficient degree that the yawning chasm between the two on offense makes this more of an interesting conversation than a "this is definitely Tim Duncan." Also mind, I'm not saying it's definitely Jokic, just that it's a reasonably close comparison, just from two guys on opposite ends of the impact style spectrum.

Yeah I just disagree with that, he was an objectively capable big man scorer and offensive weapon and that is still desired.

He super wouldn't be worth volume scoring touches in today's league, no. He was good for his own era. Not tier one, but certainly good enough.

It is a comparisons forum, and Shaq is the more natural comparison to Jokic

But that isn't the thread, so it's irrelevant.

[No-more-rings]

Saying Jokic got “destroyed on defense”’ignores that the Warriors were a great offensive team who got hot at the right time, and that there’s 4 other players on the court with Jokic that can share blame for that.

You can name plenty of examples of people who actually are great defenders and their team still gets shredded on defense. Duncan included.

I know you’ll point to the Warriors points or ORTG, but we can just as easily say that the Spurs had a very bad 90 ORTG. Does that mean Duncan had a terrible series on offense? You can’t have it both ways no matter how bad you want to.

Well, the difference is that Duncan didn't play badly on offense in most of the series and he certainly wasn't a problem. Warriors dominated Nuggets defensively in big part because of his offensive limitations.

Jokic basically carries the offense like a guard would, we’ve never quite seen that before.

It’s just a little strange to me that Jokic is held to standards we’ve never seen with another center. He’s being expected to have both guard like impact on offense, and apparently elite center defensive impact.

Why?

I don't think anyone is waiting for Jokic shutting down ATG offense, but it would be nice if he starts to show some resistance against any quality offense faced in the playoffs. For now, it's very easy to attack Jokic on defense and Nuggets/Jokic have to do something to prevent from that. It would be nice if all we have is Warriors dominating him, but he also looked bad against Blazers and Suns in 2021.

Jokic doesn't have to be elite defender to be ranked ahead of Duncan, but he has to do more in the playoffs.

I think the point you guys are missing is, Jokic could definitely have better showings defending teams with a better defensive cast built around him. He’s not solely responsible for a team getting 120 ORTG or whatever, especially considering he can only do so much when a team is launching a bunch of 3s.

People think Jokic’s defense is the reason his teams are losing, but really it’s because his teams simply haven’t been good enough. He lost to the Lebron/AD lakers, Suns(without Murray), and Warriors without Murray. Two out of 3 champions and all finalists, 2 without his 2nd best player.

A lot of times he’s going against these teams with one hand tied behind his back.

If you’re expecting him to average 30/13/6 on 64 ts% while also being a defensive anchor you’re basically holding him to goat standards.

[AEnigma]

What’s there to look past? Jokic thoroughly dominated them offensively.

And it in no way came close for making up how even more thoroughly they were obliterated on defence. Which maybe you could look past if the Warriors did that to everyone like the 2001 Lakers did, or if it were an outlier bad result for a Jokic-led defence like it was for the 2001 Spurs, but they did not and it was not.

You repeating this argument over and over doesn’t make it true.

I am repeating it because it is true, not to make it true.

Saying Jokic got “destroyed on defense”’ignores that the Warriors were a great offensive team who got hot at the right time,

No, it does not. They were a fine offensive team capable of exploiting bad defences. They blew up the Nuggets and Mavericks. They notably did not against the Grizzlies or Celtics. They “got hot” in large part because they were defended poorly — although yes they probably do not shoot exactly that well if you repeated the series.

and that there’s 4 other players on the court with Jokic that can share blame for that.

Yes, but can you tell me which position affects it most.

You can name plenty of examples of people who actually are great defenders and their team still gets shredded on defense. Duncan included.

But Jokic is not that, and accordingly this is a consistent issue for him in a way it is not for good defensive centres.

I know you’ll point to the Warriors points or ORTG, but we can just as easily say that the Spurs had a very bad 90 ORTG. Does that mean Duncan had a terrible series on offense? You can’t have it both ways no matter how bad you want to.

You could argue he did not play especially brilliantly on offence, sure, but the difference again is that is not some normative issue for Duncan.

I can’t think of many if any players who can put up an elite offensive performance against the best ranked defense, while simultaneously shutting the other teams down. Maybe the goat bigs, which Jokic is not but neither is 01 Duncan given his offensive limitations.

The difference is that the players putting up elite offensive performances fit with those bigs who do help shut the other team down.

Jokic basically carries the offense like a guard would, we’ve never quite seen that before.

And I would rather not rely on a guard as my team’s defensive anchor.

It’s just a little strange to me that Jokic is held to standards we’ve never seen with another center. He’s being expected to have both guard like impact on offense, and apparently elite center defensive impact.

Why?

He is held to the exact standards we see with every other centre, which is the problem. You want to give him credit for his guard-like offence even while he limits a team’s defensive ceiling more than most guards.

I think the point you guys are missing is, Jokic could definitely have better showings defending teams with a better defensive cast built around him. He’s not solely responsible for a team getting 120 ORTG or whatever, especially considering he can only do so much when a team is launching a bunch of 3s.

No one is missing that point. What you are missing is how much harder it is to build a strong defence when you cannot rely on your centre to do so.

People think Jokic’s defense is the reason his teams are losing, but really it’s because his teams simply haven’t been good enough. He lost to the Lebron/AD lakers, Suns(without Murray), and Warriors without Murray. Two out of 3 champions and all finalists, 2 without his 2nd best player.

A lot of times he’s going against these teams with one hand tied behind his back.

Are Jamal and MPJ fixing the defence.

No one cares that he lost, they care about how he lost. If you need to put up a 123 ortg against the league’s top defence to have a chance, good luck.

If you’re expecting him to average 30/13/6 on 64 ts% while also being a defensive anchor you’re basically holding him to goat standards.

I would happily trade some of that offence for better defence, because that would make him substantially easier to build around.

[70sFan]

I think the point you guys are missing is, Jokic could definitely have better showings defending teams with a better defensive cast built around him. He’s not solely responsible for a team getting 120 ORTG or whatever, especially considering he can only do so much when a team is launching a bunch of 3s.

You are right and it's true that Jokic isn't the sole reason why Nuggets struggled defensively. If you think that I miss it, then you are mistaken. The difference between that and Spurs struggling in 2001 WCF is that Jokic was in part responsible for Nuggets struggling. You can't just watch these games and say "it's not Jokic fault".

A better team would help him a lot, but it wouldn't make him a good defender.

If you’re expecting him to average 30/13/6 on 64 ts% while also being a defensive anchor you’re basically holding him to goat standards.

We're comparing him to GOAT level players on this Board, come on. If you don't hold him to GOAT standards, then you basically don't view him highly.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

We'll find out in 2-3 years how good was 2022 Jokic

[LessEyeTest]

As someone who instantly became a massive Duncan fan in 98 after moving to USA as an 8yr old kid and someone who is a Jokic fan now, I feel like transporting Jokic to the early 00s doesn't really diminish his value whatsoever because the game slows down and allows him to hide his defensive deficiencies (PnR) but moving Duncan potentially improves his offense (far less great post defenders).

Either way, as a MASSIVE Jokic homer, I just cannot see anyone outdoing Duncan's 03 work where I thought - for that summer at least - I witnessed the GOAT in action. But in terms of 22 Jokic his peak is one of the top 10 all-time.

[Jaivl]

03 Duncan > 22 Jokic > 01 Duncan IMO