RealGM

2 legendary giants of the game, one a generational all around offensive wizard about to become the first b2b2b MVP since Larry Bird, though without an iconic playoffs run yet, likely no fault of his own due to mediocre teammates, and the other the all-time GOAT PF and defensive stalwart lynchpin behind the great Spurs dynasty with very good offense, multiple MVPs and 5 titles.


Nikola Jokic vs Tim Duncan - who is the better player?

Not close.

Jokic by a mile.

Gregoire wrote:Not close.

LessEyeTest wrote:Jokic by a mile.

Care to elaborate?

Duncan’s 2002 and 2003 seasons are above any Jokic season in my mind, if Jokic manages to win a title this year I may change my mind though.

Despite them playing a similar position, this is a tough kind of comparison. 1 player whose high-end impact comes on one side of the ball vs. the other player who is an elite 2-way player.

It probably depends on how you feel about Jokic's defense and Timmy's offense, because we already know that Joker on offense and Timmy on defense are in GOAT conversations. There's nothing really to address about their dominant side of the ball. They're as good as it possibly gets. We all still have questions about Jokic's defense that can only be answered in the playoffs while he's on a good team. We can look back at 2020 and we'll get some fresh data this year.

Even if you're low on Duncan's offense, it clearly passed the "good enough" bar when he won his second title. His scoring efficiency across the 2002 and 2003 seasons isn't something he consistently sustained throughout his career in the regular season, but he has plenty other playoff runs where he shoulders a big scoring load and raises his efficiency. 2005 would have been a monster run too, but his numbers are deflated by playing against Detroit in the finals (one of the best defensive frontcourts ever, and pretty uniquely suited to make Duncan's life hell). By the late 2000s, Duncan is only part-time scoring hub in the playoffs, but his role as a high-post passing hub doesn't fade until the last couple seasons of his career. Duncan doesn't get mentioned when we talk about the best offensive players ever - because he probably isn't - but being the best offensive player on a championship team still puts you in elite company. I'd further argue that his ability to blend with other good offensive players and compliment them, is an offensive strength and something to think about when you're looking at the seasons where Duncan's box score productivity starts to decrease.

Jokic's defense is still a bit mysterious. Those lofty defensive metrics that Jokic fans point too haven't held up in the playoffs in any season except 2019. But the data here feels too foggy due to the rosters he's played on. With Duncan the data feels immaculate. With Joker we've never seen him on a good defensive roster, though part of that is that Jokic is not an all-time level defender.

Comparing defense and offense and stacking them together like 1+1=2 too is obviously not great analysis, but we end up doing that a bit with players whos strengths lie on different ends. Duncan was the best offensive player on a championship team. Can any of us really imagine that Jokic could be the best defensive player on a championship team? I hope Denver has a lengthy playoff run so we can see multiple opponents try to attack Jokic and we get a much stronger idea of how easy that is to do. The Nuggets don't really have any rim protection. Their best defensive personnel are more about matching up and rotating well. If the Nuggets are able to hold up defensively with this roster, I think that would be compelling evidence that Jokic is at least "pretty good".

Being "pretty good" on defense would nudge him closer to Duncan but Jokic has a long way to go before this comparison feels worthwhile.

Duncan but it’s close

Tough call. Fairly opposite, I"d think. Jokic blows Duncan out of the water as an offensive player, but Timmy's defensive impact was a lot larger (leastwise in his own era). Would be interesting to see how that translates forward into this era, though, since Duncan wasnt exactly a massive boon against switching offenses in his own career. Not like he was Shaq-level weak, but he wasn't KG out there switching and trapping and roaming around all nasty-like, you know? So it depends on when you want to talk about playing these guys. In the 90s and early 2000s, his D makes this a fairly close and intriguing comparison. Now? I think I lean Jokic. Just all about the context and what you want from them. Like, you definitely wouldn't want to run volume shots through Duncan right now (and really most years post-2003, tbh) because that's not really where his strengths lay. But if you need a tough defensive anchor who could rebound well, passed sensibly and was a good team offensive player who could dial it up from time to time, then that's more Tim than Joker.

Duncan, KAJ, Shaq, Dream and Wilt are the only five bigs that I would take over Jokic and Giannis, until the latter two achieve bigger playoff success.

With better player, I'm thinking peak for peak.

If Jokic maintains or comes near his offensive production in the PS (especially as a playmaker), I think the Duncan comparisons to 2003 could then be only entertained. Even then, Duncan provided enough scoring prowess and ability to hit open shooters to be a sufficient first option on O while arguably having the best defensive run of this century - along with Garnett's 2004/08 campaigns.

Jokic is having the best offensive season of all time (RS wise) in my opinion, but when looking at championship equity - it could be very arguable that Duncan is a +7 player in guesstimated P/M & almost every approach taken to quantify impact loves his 2003 Playoff Run.

Duncan's 2003 PS run:

All stats per 75

24.8 aPts on +6.2%rTS
12 FTA / 100 Poss and 1.5 ScoreVal
14.3 Rebounds (3.75 on Offense)
5.0 Assists
3.1 Blocks
7.3 Passer Rating
37.8 O-Load
8.7 BackPicks BPM (4.5 OBPM) , 10.2 BBR BPM (6.2 O)
.279 WS/48
7.4 Augmented +/- Per Game (4th all time behind 2017 Curry, and 17/09 James)
7.91 Full-Season PIPM
27 On/Off Net Rating Swing, 105.6-96.6 (+9) on floor vs. 87.6-105.6 off floor.

This doesn't even get into the eye test, where there is a ton to like about Duncan as a defensive anchor (in the context of 2003 San Antonio, took a very solid defensive slanted team to GOAT-lite levels) and a floor-raiser with his post scoring, ability to garner fouls, and underrated passing and playmaking acumen (pretty great rim assist-rates, iirc / 1-in 4-out playmaking based off of teams' reacting to Duncan's scoring threat). Basically any impact metric available regards this season not too far from some of the highest seasons charted. He could have at the least some argument over these three.

Posted this in an earlier forum here. It would require an offensive onslaught and ability to adapt to anything thrown at him in order to warrant comparisons to such an apex from Duncan - whom I see as a top 5-7 single season all time with duplicates excluded. Jokic right now is having a top 10 Regular Season ever, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm beginning to consider arguments for Jokic over Duncan et al. at this point, he's that good on offense.

Let's take a look at his defense come playoff time and see if we get some answers.

Relative to era I think its clearly Duncan but Jokic could prove me slightly wrong in the playoffs.

Duncan with a moderate gap.

Duncan not even close. Wtf is up with these awful takes lmao. This reminds me of people overrating Harden prematurely

So Duncan is much better than Magic? Good to know

durantbird wrote:So Duncan is much better than Magic? Good to know

Honestly I think Duncan being much better than Magic is much easier to believe than Magic being much better than Jokic (I disagree with both takes myself).

On offense Jokic's playmaking ability along with his better spacing and overall post moves make it a no brainer.

I read here somwhere however Denver's opponents score a lot in the paint at high FG%. How much of that is Jokic's fault? When I see him I don't smell great defense, but it's not like I'm watching him 82 games per season so... somebody can put some insight on that?

Because Tim Duncan was among the best defensive anchors in NBA history. We're talking about a top 5 candidate here (at least).

rim213221 wrote:2 legendary giants of the game, one a generational all around offensive wizard about to become the first b2b2b MVP since Larry Bird, though without an iconic playoffs run yet, likely no fault of his own due to mediocre teammates, and the other the all-time GOAT PF and defensive stalwart lynchpin behind the great Spurs dynasty with very good offense, multiple MVPs and 5 titles.


Nikola Jokic vs Tim Duncan - who is the better player?

So, I have to punt. Or rather, I'm going to keep siding with Duncan until Jokic does certain things that give me enough confidence that would change my mind. I don't like this - I hate the idea of not daring to entertain the question of whether a new guy is better than a legend until he has the right team accomplishments because in theory we should be able to look at a player in the moment and evaluate with confidence whether he's better than guys from the past...but I cannot do so with a player like Jokic with the confidence I need.

The specific concern is of course about Jokic's defense. While he's made great strides with his weaknesses, he's still a big man without amazing agility in a world where agility is incredibly important.

Now, to be fair, if we're really looking to evaluate these guys based on how they'd do in today's game, there are questions about Duncan and most all-time great defensive bigs too for similar reasons. It's thus well within the realm of possibility that the defensive gap between Duncan & Jokic wouldn't actually end up being so night & day that it should dominate the comparison when Jokic is so vastly superior on offense.

But to this point I'm more confident about Duncan being able to be a big minute guy on a modern championship team than I am with Jokic, and that goes a lot way for me.

Doctor MJ wrote:
So, I have to punt. Or rather, I'm going to keep siding with Duncan until Jokic does certain things that give me enough confidence that would change my mind. I don't like this - I hate the idea of not daring to entertain the question of whether a new guy is better than a legend until he has the right team accomplishments because in theory we should be able to look at a player in the moment and evaluate with confidence whether he's better than guys from the past...but I cannot do so with a player like Jokic with the confidence I need.

The specific concern is of course about Jokic's defense. While he's made great strides with his weaknesses, he's still a big man without amazing agility in a world where agility is incredibly important.

Now, to be fair, if we're really looking to evaluate these guys based on how they'd do in today's game, there are questions about Duncan and most all-time great defensive bigs too for similar reasons. It's thus well within the realm of possibility that the defensive gap between Duncan & Jokic wouldn't actually end up being so night & day that it should dominate the comparison when Jokic is so vastly superior on offense.

But to this point I'm more confident about Duncan being able to be a big minute guy on a modern championship team than I am with Jokic, and that goes a lot way for me.

I don't really get why when someone asks who the better player is in a thread such as this one the tendency so often is to put both players being compared in today's league. Is the current league always the best test of who the better player actually is to many people?

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
So, I have to punt. Or rather, I'm going to keep siding with Duncan until Jokic does certain things that give me enough confidence that would change my mind. I don't like this - I hate the idea of not daring to entertain the question of whether a new guy is better than a legend until he has the right team accomplishments because in theory we should be able to look at a player in the moment and evaluate with confidence whether he's better than guys from the past...but I cannot do so with a player like Jokic with the confidence I need.

The specific concern is of course about Jokic's defense. While he's made great strides with his weaknesses, he's still a big man without amazing agility in a world where agility is incredibly important.

Now, to be fair, if we're really looking to evaluate these guys based on how they'd do in today's game, there are questions about Duncan and most all-time great defensive bigs too for similar reasons. It's thus well within the realm of possibility that the defensive gap between Duncan & Jokic wouldn't actually end up being so night & day that it should dominate the comparison when Jokic is so vastly superior on offense.

But to this point I'm more confident about Duncan being able to be a big minute guy on a modern championship team than I am with Jokic, and that goes a lot way for me.

I don't really get why when someone asks who the better player is in a thread such as this one the tendency so often is to put both players being compared in today's league. Is the current league always the best test of who the better player actually is to many people?

I mean, unless we artificially force Jokic to be worse, accounting for his impact in older eras probably just helps him here.