RealGM

Which span of 4 years was more impressive and impactful?

Duncan was significantly more impactful. Impressive? Probably still Duncan.

Colbinii wrote:Duncan was significantly more impactful. Impressive? Probably still Duncan.

But Jokic has the PER and BPM in NBA history!

Nowascki wrote:

Colbinii wrote:Duncan was significantly more impactful. Impressive? Probably still Duncan.

But Jokic has the PER and BPM in NBA history!

Box-Score King--dethroned Jordan in that regard.

Nowascki wrote:

Colbinii wrote:Duncan was significantly more impactful. Impressive? Probably still Duncan.

But Jokic has the PER and BPM in NBA history!

I know "impressive" is a totally subjective measure, but surely nobody would have to refer to PER to make the case for Jokic. The guy makes like 5 passes a game that can only be described as psychedelic and has the softest touch in the league

Not to say Duncan is the wrong answer here per se, but reducing being impressed by Jokic (of all people) to pure statsheet watching seems like a reach

Colbinii wrote:

Nowascki wrote:

Colbinii wrote:Duncan was significantly more impactful. Impressive? Probably still Duncan.

But Jokic has the PER and BPM in NBA history!

Box-Score King--dethroned Jordan in that regard.

I would say impact side ... Jokic's on-off for his 4 year span is (by Reference) +16.2 (with +9.7 on), for Duncan that's +12.3 (+11.0 on). And fwiw, Jokic's career number of +11.8 is close to Duncan's 4 year spell ... which eyeballing it seems to be Duncan's best 4 year spell.

If one is comfortable with the samples one could raise the playoffs as an advantage for Duncan (though someone more broadly anti-Duncan might ask how trusting those numbers gets you with Duncan's playoff value to the '99 and '05 title teams - or note that Manu more or less matches ['03] or substantially bests Duncan's numbers ['04, '05] in the shared years in the span).

Crude numbers for sure but given the lack of qualification (something like "imo") and the degree "significantly" ... it's possible to read as Jokic somehow relatively lacking impact ... for me, without taking a hard stand on the broader question, I don't think that's the case.

I think Duncan had a higher 3 year peak than Jokic in 2001-03, but 2005 is a weak link for him year. Missed a chunk of the RS (which isn't usually that big a deal but he's being compared to Jokic here who is an iron man) and then had arguably the worst Playoffs of his prime. It is very commonly said that Manu was the better player for that Spurs title.

I think 2002 and 2003 Duncan are better than any Jokic season (so far) but for this 4 year stretch I think I'd lean Jokic. If it was 2001-04 I'd probably take Duncan.

03 Duncan = 02 Duncan >= 23 Jokic > 22 Jokic > 24 Jokic > 04 Duncan > 21 Jokic > 05 Duncan

wafflzgod wrote:03 Duncan = 02 Duncan >= 23 Jokic > 22 Jokic > 04 Duncan > 21 Jokic > 05 Duncan

Where is 2024 Jokic? Equal to 2023 Jokic?

Colbinii wrote:

wafflzgod wrote:03 Duncan = 02 Duncan >= 23 Jokic > 22 Jokic > 04 Duncan > 21 Jokic > 05 Duncan

Where is 2024 Jokic? Equal to 2023 Jokic?

Forgot to put it. I would have 24 Jokic slightly below 22 and over 04 Duncan I think

parsnips33 wrote:

Nowascki wrote:

Colbinii wrote:Duncan was significantly more impactful. Impressive? Probably still Duncan.

But Jokic has the PER and BPM in NBA history!

I know "impressive" is a totally subjective measure, but surely nobody would have to refer to PER to make the case for Jokic. The guy makes like 5 passes a game that can only be described as psychedelic and has the softest touch in the league

Not to say Duncan is the wrong answer here per se, but reducing being impressed by Jokic (of all people) to pure statsheet watching seems like a reach

I'm not doing that at all. If you know the context behind the numbers then you know about his amazing passes and stuff.

Duncan for sure.

Duncan put me to sleep, couldn’t watch him.

Jokic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk