‘01 Tim Duncan vs ‘22 Nikola Jokic

[Matt15]

Who was the better player?

[AEnigma]

The guy who already had a Finals MVP and was already one of the best defenders in the league, or the guy who makes Shaq’s postseason pnr defence look stout?

[70sFan]

Quite close, but I think Duncan had less exploitable weakesses. Give me him.

[tsherkin]

The guy who already had a Finals MVP and was already one of the best defenders in the league, or the guy who makes Shaq’s postseason pnr defence look stout?

Thin take. Jokic would have looked a little different against simpler offenses in the 90s and early 2000s as well, and is dramatically superior to Duncan on offense. Port Duncan into today's league and see how he handles things. He wasn't some staggeringly mobile perimeter defender himself, and his offensive primacy would wither away in the modern league as well. Food for thought. If you're going to look at a player's different elements, era context matters. Obviously, Duncan was a lot better than Jokic on D, but if you're going to address a given specific element, then keep in mind much how worse it is today than back in Duncan's time as far as the relevance of PnR D while remembering the laaaaaaaarge offensive gap.

[No-more-rings]

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.

[Colbinii]

I have 2022 Jokic as a Top 12-15 Peak which is ahead of 2001 Duncan.

Id likely take 2002 and 2003 Duncan over Joker in a vacuum, though clearly prefer Jokic in this era.

[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.

[70sFan]

On the second thought I think I might reconsider 2022 Jokic case over 2001 Duncan. I would pick 2002, 2003 and maybe 2007 Duncan over any version of Jokic, but Duncan's mediocre FT shooting and yet undeveloped passing game hurt his offense.

It's very close comparison though. Duncan was already a monster on defense and Jokic defense is quite concerning. It's basically about Duncan's defense vs Jokic offense, along with Duncan's offensive limitations vs Jokic's defensive limitations. I think that Jokic offense is a bit more dominant than 2001 Duncan's defense, but his defense is definitely more questionable than Duncan's offense. We have seen Duncan leading his team to the title as the first option before 2001 and I see no reason to believe that he got worse on that end.

[AEnigma]

The guy who already had a Finals MVP and was already one of the best defenders in the league, or the guy who makes Shaq’s postseason pnr defence look stout?

Thin take. Jokic would have looked a little different against simpler offenses in the 90s and early 2000s as well, and is dramatically superior to Duncan on offense. Port Duncan into today's league and see how he handles things. He wasn't some staggeringly mobile perimeter defender himself, and his offensive primacy would wither away in the modern league as well. Food for thought. If you're going to look at a player's different elements, era context matters. Obviously, Duncan was a lot better than Jokic on D, but if you're going to address a given specific element, then keep in mind much how worse it is today than back in Duncan's time as far as the relevance of PnR D while remembering the laaaaaaaarge offensive gap.

I do, which is expressly why I brought up Shaq as a comparison, who routinely struggled to defend against rudimentary offensive actions in the postseason even then and to whom Duncan was eminently close to equalling as a player.

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.

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

[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.

[No-more-rings]

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.

[AEnigma]

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.

[parsnips33]

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"

[Cavsfansince84]

I think Jokic's rs carry job needs to carry a lot of weight here. That team had no business whatsoever winning so many games and he was putting absurd games up throughout that rs.

[tsherkin]

I do, which is expressly why I brought up Shaq as a comparison, who routinely struggled to defend against rudimentary offensive actions in the postseason even then and to whom Duncan was eminently close to equalling as a player.

Yeah. Duncan was a lot worse than Shaq on offense but considerably better on D. It's an interesting comparison. Volume scoring from the post is interesting, and with shooters, Shaq actually becomes very compelling in today's league, based on what we see from Jokic and Embiid and so forth, FT shooting notwithstanding.

But circling back to Jokic/Duncan. I think the offensive gap is more than enough to make up for the defensive gap when you consider the drop-off we'd likely see in Duncan's defensive efficacy today. You may disagree and that will be an interesting debate, because Duncan was an amazing player. But so is Jokic, so diminishing him based on PnR defense when Duncan would be CONSIDERABLY worse at that today is an interesting subject to me.

[AEnigma]

I do, which is expressly why I brought up Shaq as a comparison, who routinely struggled to defend against rudimentary offensive actions in the postseason even then and to whom Duncan was eminently close to equalling as a player.

Yeah. Duncan was a lot worse than Shaq on offense but considerably better on D. It's an interesting comparison. Volume scoring from the post is interesting, and with shooters, Shaq actually becomes very compelling in today's league, based on what we see from Jokic and Embiid and so forth, FT shooting notwithstanding.

But circling back to Jokic/Duncan. I think the offensive gap is more than enough to make up for the defensive gap when you consider the drop-off we'd likely see in Duncan's defensive efficacy today. You may disagree and that will be an interesting debate, because Duncan was an amazing player. But so is Jokic, so diminishing him based on PnR defense when Duncan would be CONSIDERABLY worse at that today is an interesting subject to me.

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

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.

[HeartBreakKid]

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.

[Statlanta]

Go with the guy with NBA Finals experience.

[JordansBulls]

Rule Changes as well especially when both lost with HCA. If one lost with HCA and has no titles then the other gets the benefit.

[tsherkin]

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.

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.

— 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.

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.