Where will Jokic rank among all time Center’s with another chip this year ?

[MavsDirk41]

The Spurs role players provided what Duncan gave them thanks to drawing a double virtually every play.

On D the 2003 Spurs were elite because of Duncan. They'd have won about 20 games without Duncan, and I can't say anything like that about the Nuggets team.

And the Nuggets dont get easy looks because of the attention and passing of Jokic? Nobody in that starting 5 other than Murray can create their own shot. Gotdon, KCP, Porter, and the bench players rely on the playmaking of Jokic and to an extent Murray. Where is the difference?

Lmao so take Jokic off this Denver team (all 82 regular season games) and how many wins do they have?

[One_and_Done]

The Spurs role players provided what Duncan gave them thanks to drawing a double virtually every play.

On D the 2003 Spurs were elite because of Duncan. They'd have won about 20 games without Duncan, and I can't say anything like that about the Nuggets team.

And the Nuggets dont get easy looks because of the attention and passing of Jokic? Nobody in that starting 5 other than Murray can create their own shot. Gotdon, KCP, Porter, and the bench players rely on the playmaking of Jokic and to an extent Murray. Where is the difference?

Lmao so take Jokic off this Denver team (all 82 regular season games) and how many wins do they have?

Of course the Nuggets benefit from Jokic. The question is what these guys could do in another system without Jokic. The evidence suggests alot more than these Spurs guys could have, given what I just discussed above.

[MavsDirk41]

The Spurs role players provided what Duncan gave them thanks to drawing a double virtually every play.

On D the 2003 Spurs were elite because of Duncan. They'd have won about 20 games without Duncan, and I can't say anything like that about the Nuggets team.

And the Nuggets dont get easy looks because of the attention and passing of Jokic? Nobody in that starting 5 other than Murray can create their own shot. Gotdon, KCP, Porter, and the bench players rely on the playmaking of Jokic and to an extent Murray. Where is the difference?

Lmao so take Jokic off this Denver team (all 82 regular season games) and how many wins do they have?

Of course the Nuggets benefit from Jokic. The question is what these guys could do in another system without Jokic. The evidence suggests alot more than these Spurs guys could have, given what I just discussed above.

Your entire arguments on here are hypothetical’s. There is no way to prove what anybody on the 2023/2024 Nuggets would look like without Jokic, or what the 2002/2003 Spurs would look like without Duncan. There is also no way to prove that Wilt or Russell would be less talented today than they were in their playing days. I asked you to provide evidence that Denver’s bench is comparable talent wise to San Antonios bench in 02/03. Nothing. I asked you to provide evidence that Russell and Wilt would be less talented today. Nothing.

- suggestion: say its your opinion unless you can provide evidence to support your claim.

[One_and_Done]

Everything is hypothetical without a time machine. By that logic nobody should discuss anything on this forum.

I gave you plenty of evidence, you are choosing not to hear it, or moving the goal posts (e.g. "prove Denver's bench was better!", when we're discussing the entire support cast).

[MavsDirk41]

Everything is hypothetical without a time machine. By that logic nobody should discuss anything on this forum.

I gave you plenty of evidence, you are choosing not to hear it, or moving the goal posts (e.g. "prove Denver's bench was better!", when we're discussing the entire support cast).

You gave nothing factual lol! Look at the stats man! Did you ignore the production of Ginobli, Rose, and Speedy (game 6) of the 2003 finals? Let me make this easy for you: San Antonio got more rebounds, points, assists, and steals from their bench players than what Denver gets from their bench players. That can be proven by looking at statistics/box scores/watching the players play (eye test). San Antonio had a decent bench. Denver’s bench is horrible. Come on man lol. If i give an opinion i say its my opinion. You act like what you say is factual. Its not lol

[ninjamilk23]

Russell and Wilt wouldn't even be top 10 players today probably. Nor would Moses.

Both Russell and Wilt would be top 3 players today. Both are freak athletes. Russell has more basketball IQ than any other player in history, he'd adapt. Wilt actually showed a willingness and ability to adapt his play style, he'd still be a star. I'm not saying either would be Goat candidates, but they'd be better than Embiid or Tatum

I just want to first say that this is a genuine question. What evidence do you have that suggest that Russell has more basketball IQ than any other player in history? Looking at his stats, his rebounding is the only thing impressive in my opinion. His FG is 44% and for a center that is horrible. His FT is 56% which is also very low.

[Rishkar]

Russell and Wilt wouldn't even be top 10 players today probably. Nor would Moses.

Both Russell and Wilt would be top 3 players today. Both are freak athletes. Russell has more basketball IQ than any other player in history, he'd adapt. Wilt actually showed a willingness and ability to adapt his play style, he'd still be a star. I'm not saying either would be Goat candidates, but they'd be better than Embiid or Tatum

I just want to first say that this is a genuine question. What evidence do you have that suggest that Russell has more basketball IQ than any other player in history? Looking at his stats, his rebounding is the only thing impressive in my opinion. His FG is 44% and for a center that is horrible. His FT is 56% which is also very low.

Mostly watching tape of his defense, especially his rotations. He just had an uncanny ability to read the game. Additionally, he won two championships as both the coach and best player on the team. You can definitely choose to give Red more of the credit for the Celtics brilliance, but I think it was Russell. They played at a really fast pace which had three major effects
1. Increased the number of possessions in the game, and thus created a larger sample size (where they let their unique defensive advantage give them the edge over their opponents). In 64, they won the chip with the worst offense in the league. Sacrificing some offensive efficiency to increase the number of defensive possessions is genius.
2. Capitalized on Russell's athleticism and Cousy's passing. This is a team that really struggled in the half court on offense, Jones was the only reliable source of scoring. Russell was from my reading the fastest center in the league, and Havileck was a complete anomaly when it comes to stamina. Cousy's inability to score is slightly mitigated when pushing the pace.
3. This might be the most important. The Celtics tore up the league in a way that has yet to be replicated. It didn't matter if they were overwhelming favorites or the 4th seed (in a 14 team league). This led to a lot of imitation (we see this the most with people wanting Wilt to play like Russell). Every team in the league was running a seven second or less style offense (which is why the raw counting totals from this era are inflated) because the Celtics were winning so much with it.
How much of this innovation/strategy is due to Russell seems a little unclear, but it came from an organization he led

Additionally, he really popularized the concept of vertical defense. Think of Jokic. Because Jokic doesn't really jump while contesting shots, he is immediately mobile and able to position himself for a rebound. He also bites less on pump fakes. This play style was the conventional wisdom of the time, until Russell proved that jumping to contest shots was effective enough to be worth it.

Hope this helps explain my position. I'm not an expert on 60s basketball, so if anyone wants to proof check me or offer their insight I would love that.

[One_and_Done]

Everything is hypothetical without a time machine. By that logic nobody should discuss anything on this forum.

I gave you plenty of evidence, you are choosing not to hear it, or moving the goal posts (e.g. "prove Denver's bench was better!", when we're discussing the entire support cast).

You gave nothing factual lol! Look at the stats man! Did you ignore the production of Ginobli, Rose, and Speedy (game 6) of the 2003 finals? Let me make this easy for you: San Antonio got more rebounds, points, assists, and steals from their bench players than what Denver gets from their bench players. That can be proven by looking at statistics/box scores/watching the players play (eye test). San Antonio had a decent bench. Denver’s bench is horrible. Come on man lol. If i give an opinion i say its my opinion. You act like what you say is factual. Its not lol

You just fail to understand context. In every basketball game there are points to be had. Ricky Davis once averaged 20ppg. He was a terrible basketball player nonetheless. What is important is the context in which you get those points, and what value they bring to the team.

The context here is that the Spurs were hitting open baskets generated for them by Duncan, and without Duncan the team would have been a 20 win type team. That’s not to say there isn’t value in hitting open shots (albeit inconsistently), there obviously is, but it doesn’t tell us much about the players value. Anthony Morrow could hit open shots, he was still a terrible basketball player. Your approach of adding up box score counting stats to tell us how valuable a player was is not sound.

To provide a more nuanced consideration of player value I asked:

1) How did the team do with/without them?
2) How did the rest of the NBA value these players?

I noted that most of the supposedly “elite defensive players” left after 2003, and that the Spurs defensive rating actually went up the following 2 years compared to 2003. It seems odd that guys like D.Rob, S.Jax, M.Rose, Claxton, etc, were such valuable defensive players, yet were replaced with worse defensive players (like Rasho, Hedo, Horry, etc) and the team’s defence got better. It’s also odd that D.Rob was supposedly an “elite defensive player”, and yet the Spurs went 15-3 in games he didn’t play in 2003, or that the Spurs went 10-3 in games rookie Manu didn’t play. Then when it came time for teams to let their wallets do the talking, nobody really wanted to pay the Spurs like S.Jax or Speedy or M.Rose or Bowen. They were not seen as that valuable. Even Manu, after his 2nd year, was not valued in the free agent market anything like an all-star, because his break out hadn’t happened yet. In 03 he was a jittery and unreliable role player still.

To my eyes Duncan was that team. The entire offense ran through him, and everyone scored through overlaps and open shots/space he created when he was doubled on almost every possession. The defence was also Duncan. Other guys came and went, and the Defence stayed the same or got better, because Duncan was anchoring the whole thing. So when you say “Bob Bobberson got 12 key points in a playoff game”, I say we need to put that in content. The context is Bobberson is nothing special, he’s just able to hit the open shots Duncan is creating for him and do little else. It’s not that valuable a skill. In contrast the Nuggets players are very valuable, and the market for them reflected that.

You have consistently tried to change the topic, e.g. to discuss who “had the best bench”. I don’t think it matters who had the best bench, it matters who had the best team. When Your 4th best guy is better than the Spurs 2nd best guy, it doesn’t matter much who your 8th man is; not that the Spurs had a great 8th man, it’s just a distraction from the real topic. The Nuggets have the far superior support cast as a whole, and like with most support casts the guys 2-5 matter exponentially more than who you have 6-8, especially in the playoffs when 6-8 are barely playing. I don’t even know who you think the 6-8 guys on the Spurs were that were good, but I also don’t really care as I just explained.

[cornchip]

To answer the question of this thread, I think there’s a distinction between Jokic’s ranking in overall greatness and his ranking in peak greatness. In terms of peak, he’s already very arguably the #1 center of all time, and another championship would just further cement that. But I think this thread is aiming at overall greatness. That’s a more difficult question, since Jokic is in the middle of his career still, and we can’t give Jokic credit for things he hasn’t yet done. It’s a huge disadvantage to be ranked in overall greatness in the middle of your career against guys whose careers are over, since players accumulate more and more greatness as their careers go on.

What I’ll say is this:

The following centers placed above Jokic in the PC Board top 100 prior to this season: Kareem, Russell, Hakeem, Wilt, Shaq, Mikan, Robinson, and Moses Malone. Let’s assume that Jokic is already above everyone else, and then talk about each of these.

- I think it will be almost impossible for Jokic to reach Kareem in overall greatness. Kareem just played at a high level for so long. I don’t see Jokic bothering to play for long enough, and he got a later start as a totally elite player, so there’s just going to be a massive longevity gap there. Another championship this year definitely wouldn’t get Jokic there. He’d need to have things go immaculately for him the rest of his career to catch Kareem, and I just don’t see it.

- Russell is a more difficult comparison, and really just depends on how much someone discounts Russell’s era. For someone that discounts Russell’s era a lot, then Jokic can finish above Russell, and actually may already be above him. But if one takes Russell’s era at face value or almost face value, it’s going to be almost impossible to catch Russell, because of just how much Russell won. So I see this as similar to Kareem, where Jokic would need things to go immaculately for the rest of his career to catch him, but with the added caveat that that’s not the case if you discount Russell for his era.

- Relatedly, Mikan is partly a question of whether you discount his era—which was an even more nascent era than Russell’s. To me, though, Jokic is already above Mikan. Mikan had very little longevity, so Jokic winning another title this year would pretty clearly be enough to have him above Mikan IMO.

- I think Jokic is already above Moses and Robinson at this point. Moses is an interesting comparison, because he too was the NBA’s best player for half a decade. But Jokic is better and with another title would have more titles than Moses. Moses had a long career, so he’d have an advantage there, but he wasn’t really in the conversation for best player except for that five-year span, and Jokic has already had 2 or 3 really-good-but-not-the-best years like that before his peak, so I don’t think that that can overcome peak Jokic just being better. Meanwhile, with two titles as his team’s undisputed best player and a multi-year span as the league’s clear best player (which Robinson never had), I think Jokic passes Robinson, who doesn’t have a huge longevity advantage to make up for it.

- Hakeem, Wilt, and Shaq are the toughest zone. To me, Jokic is on the path to end up above those guys, but he’s not quite there yet and I don’t know that a title this year would get him above them. To me, Hakeem is the smallest lift to get over, so maybe I’d have Jokic above Hakeem already if he won a title this year. But overall, these are the guys that Jokic hasn’t passed but realistically could.

Very well stated. I agree with everything.

I think if he wins a championship this year, he surely passes Hakeem. He'll have 2 titles without All-Star teammates to Hakeem's 1 title without all-star teammates plus one with Clyde. He'll have 3 MVP's to Hakeems' 1. (And Hakeem was MVP runner up for only 1 other year, so he would have only had 2 even if Michael Jordan didn't exist.) But most importantly, I think Jokic is playing in a much more competitive era - particularly this season. The league is absolutely loaded with talent this year. Hakeem's Rockets had pretty lousy competition outside of the Bulls.

I have to push back a little here. I don't think Jokic passes Dream with a championship this year. I do think they're about even with an edge to Hakeem due to longevity and counting stats.

To your main point about competition level...the evidence actually says otherwise. Even if Jokic's Nuggets go through the Thunder and Celtics this year, the combined winning totals of the eight playoff teams faced during the two title runs would be 398 (out 656 games for a 60.6 win %).

The playoff opponent winning totals for Hakeem's Rockets 94 and 95 was 451 (out of 656 games for a 68.8 win %). This is not even including Hakeem's evisceration of the 62 win '86 Showtime Lakers.

Furthermore, the C position was very top heavy when Hakeem played with a decent middle class of C's and a fair share of low tier players at the position. I think the C position currently has very few top tier players, far more middle tier C's, a bit fewer low tier players at the position.

In all, I think the "competition" argument favors Hakeem by a good bit.

[MavsDirk41]

Everything is hypothetical without a time machine. By that logic nobody should discuss anything on this forum.

I gave you plenty of evidence, you are choosing not to hear it, or moving the goal posts (e.g. "prove Denver's bench was better!", when we're discussing the entire support cast).

You gave nothing factual lol! Look at the stats man! Did you ignore the production of Ginobli, Rose, and Speedy (game 6) of the 2003 finals? Let me make this easy for you: San Antonio got more rebounds, points, assists, and steals from their bench players than what Denver gets from their bench players. That can be proven by looking at statistics/box scores/watching the players play (eye test). San Antonio had a decent bench. Denver’s bench is horrible. Come on man lol. If i give an opinion i say its my opinion. You act like what you say is factual. Its not lol

You just fail to understand context. In every basketball game there are points to be had. Ricky Davis once averaged 20ppg. He was a terrible basketball player nonetheless. What is important is the context in which you get those points, and what value they bring to the team.

The context here is that the Spurs were hitting open baskets generated for them by Duncan, and without Duncan the team would have been a 20 win type team. That’s not to say there isn’t value in hitting open shots (albeit inconsistently), there obviously is, but it doesn’t tell us much about the players value. Anthony Morrow could hit open shots, he was still a terrible basketball player. Your approach of adding up box score counting stats to tell us how valuable a player was is not sound.

To provide a more nuanced consideration of player value I asked:

1) How did the team do with/without them?
2) How did the rest of the NBA value these players?

I noted that most of the supposedly “elite defensive players” left after 2003, and that the Spurs defensive rating actually went up the following 2 years compared to 2003. It seems odd that guys like D.Rob, S.Jax, M.Rose, Claxton, etc, were such valuable defensive players, yet were replaced with worse defensive players (like Rasho, Hedo, Horry, etc) and the team’s defence got better. It’s also odd that D.Rob was supposedly an “elite defensive player”, and yet the Spurs went 15-3 in games he didn’t play in 2003, or that the Spurs went 10-3 in games rookie Manu didn’t play. Then when it came time for teams to let their wallets do the talking, nobody really wanted to pay the Spurs like S.Jax or Speedy or M.Rose or Bowen. They were not seen as that valuable. Even Manu, after his 2nd year, was not valued in the free agent market anything like an all-star, because his break out hadn’t happened yet. In 03 he was a jittery and unreliable role player still.

To my eyes Duncan was that team. The entire offense ran through him, and everyone scored through overlaps and open shots/space he created when he was doubled on almost every possession. The defence was also Duncan. Other guys came and went, and the Defence stayed the same or got better, because Duncan was anchoring the whole thing. So when you say “Bob Bobberson got 12 key points in a playoff game”, I say we need to put that in content. The context is Bobberson is nothing special, he’s just able to hit the open shots Duncan is creating for him and do little else. It’s not that valuable a skill. In contrast the Nuggets players are very valuable, and the market for them reflected that.

You have consistently tried to change the topic, e.g. to discuss who “had the best bench”. I don’t think it matters who had the best bench, it matters who had the best team. When Your 4th best guy is better than the Spurs 2nd best guy, it doesn’t matter much who your 8th man is; not that the Spurs had a great 8th man, it’s just a distraction from the real topic. The Nuggets have the far superior support cast as a whole, and like with most support casts the guys 2-5 matter exponentially more than who you have 6-8, especially in the playoffs when 6-8 are barely playing. I don’t even know who you think the 6-8 guys on the Spurs were that were good, but I also don’t really care as I just explained.

I never said every player on the 2003 Spurs championship team was an elite defender. Duncan anchored the defense like Jokic anchors the Nuggets offense. Take Jokic off this Nuggets team and they are a lottery team. Same with taking Duncan off the 2003 Spurs team. But the Spurs role players fed off Duncan and as a unit and the team was top 3 defensively in the nba that year. It seems odd that you trash Malik Rose and Ginobli but did you know that Rose was top 4 in 6 man of the year voting in 01/02 and top 6 in 6 man of the year voting in 02/03? Did you know Ginobli was voted top 4 in rookie of the year voting in 02/03? Rose and Ginobli were far better role/bench players than any bench player on this Denver Nuggets team and thats not debateable at all.

And are you trying to say Porter Jr. is better than Tony Parker was for the champion Spurs? Lol again you didnt watch those Spurs teams play. I know that 100% from what you post on here. Its flat out comical.

[NYPiston]

Depends who is considered a center. I have him behind Kareem, Duncan, Shaq and Hakeem for sure, with no real way to ever catch those guys. Other than that I'm not sure. D.Rob doesn't have the longevity. That's probably it to be honest, since Russell and Wilt wouldn't be as good today. They just played in a trash league.

No way to ever catch those guys? He's already entering Shaq/Hakeem territory. Another 3-4 years like the last 4 with a championship or two and he surpasses them. Kareem is pretty much immortal so he'll never reach that level but 2nd best center ever is certainly within his grasp.

[One_and_Done]

Depends who is considered a center. I have him behind Kareem, Duncan, Shaq and Hakeem for sure, with no real way to ever catch those guys. Other than that I'm not sure. D.Rob doesn't have the longevity. That's probably it to be honest, since Russell and Wilt wouldn't be as good today. They just played in a trash league.

No way to ever catch those guys? He's already entering Shaq/Hakeem territory. Another 3-4 years like the last 4 with a championship or two and he surpasses them. Kareem is pretty much immortal so he'll never reach that level but 2nd best center ever is certainly within his grasp.

Clearly I disagree with most of that.

[Anticon]

Rings are a good enough proxy here. So he'd be behind Russell/Kareem/Shaq/Wilt, but pretty up there with Hakeem and the jury will rule in a few years on that. So in play for top 5.

[One_and_Done]

You gave nothing factual lol! Look at the stats man! Did you ignore the production of Ginobli, Rose, and Speedy (game 6) of the 2003 finals? Let me make this easy for you: San Antonio got more rebounds, points, assists, and steals from their bench players than what Denver gets from their bench players. That can be proven by looking at statistics/box scores/watching the players play (eye test). San Antonio had a decent bench. Denver’s bench is horrible. Come on man lol. If i give an opinion i say its my opinion. You act like what you say is factual. Its not lol

You just fail to understand context. In every basketball game there are points to be had. Ricky Davis once averaged 20ppg. He was a terrible basketball player nonetheless. What is important is the context in which you get those points, and what value they bring to the team.

The context here is that the Spurs were hitting open baskets generated for them by Duncan, and without Duncan the team would have been a 20 win type team. That’s not to say there isn’t value in hitting open shots (albeit inconsistently), there obviously is, but it doesn’t tell us much about the players value. Anthony Morrow could hit open shots, he was still a terrible basketball player. Your approach of adding up box score counting stats to tell us how valuable a player was is not sound.

To provide a more nuanced consideration of player value I asked:

1) How did the team do with/without them?
2) How did the rest of the NBA value these players?

I noted that most of the supposedly “elite defensive players” left after 2003, and that the Spurs defensive rating actually went up the following 2 years compared to 2003. It seems odd that guys like D.Rob, S.Jax, M.Rose, Claxton, etc, were such valuable defensive players, yet were replaced with worse defensive players (like Rasho, Hedo, Horry, etc) and the team’s defence got better. It’s also odd that D.Rob was supposedly an “elite defensive player”, and yet the Spurs went 15-3 in games he didn’t play in 2003, or that the Spurs went 10-3 in games rookie Manu didn’t play. Then when it came time for teams to let their wallets do the talking, nobody really wanted to pay the Spurs like S.Jax or Speedy or M.Rose or Bowen. They were not seen as that valuable. Even Manu, after his 2nd year, was not valued in the free agent market anything like an all-star, because his break out hadn’t happened yet. In 03 he was a jittery and unreliable role player still.

To my eyes Duncan was that team. The entire offense ran through him, and everyone scored through overlaps and open shots/space he created when he was doubled on almost every possession. The defence was also Duncan. Other guys came and went, and the Defence stayed the same or got better, because Duncan was anchoring the whole thing. So when you say “Bob Bobberson got 12 key points in a playoff game”, I say we need to put that in content. The context is Bobberson is nothing special, he’s just able to hit the open shots Duncan is creating for him and do little else. It’s not that valuable a skill. In contrast the Nuggets players are very valuable, and the market for them reflected that.

You have consistently tried to change the topic, e.g. to discuss who “had the best bench”. I don’t think it matters who had the best bench, it matters who had the best team. When Your 4th best guy is better than the Spurs 2nd best guy, it doesn’t matter much who your 8th man is; not that the Spurs had a great 8th man, it’s just a distraction from the real topic. The Nuggets have the far superior support cast as a whole, and like with most support casts the guys 2-5 matter exponentially more than who you have 6-8, especially in the playoffs when 6-8 are barely playing. I don’t even know who you think the 6-8 guys on the Spurs were that were good, but I also don’t really care as I just explained.

I never said every player on the 2003 Spurs championship team was an elite defender. Duncan anchored the defense like Jokic anchors the Nuggets offense. Take Jokic off this Nuggets team and they are a lottery team. Same with taking Duncan off the 2003 Spurs team. But the Spurs role players fed off Duncan and as a unit and the team was top 3 defensively in the nba that year. It seems odd that you trash Malik Rose and Ginobli but did you know that Rose was top 4 in 6 man of the year voting in 01/02 and top 6 in 6 man of the year voting in 02/03? Did you know Ginobli was voted top 4 in rookie of the year voting in 02/03? Rose and Ginobli were far better role/bench players than any bench player on this Denver Nuggets team and thats not debateable at all.

And are you trying to say Porter Jr. is better than Tony Parker was for the champion Spurs? Lol again you didnt watch those Spurs teams play. I know that 100% from what you post on here. Its flat out comical.

Minor points first:
1) The Nuggets would still be a play-in type team without Jokic. Certainly in the East they would. They wouldn't be worst in the league territory like the 02 or 03 Spurs without Duncan.
2) That Malik Rose vote for 6moy was terrible.
3) MPJ over the last 2 seasons has been much better than sophomore Tony Parker. Tony Parker was so unreliable in 2003 that in the finals he was benched for a below average journeyman named Speedy Claxton. You'd know that if you'd watched the games. MPJ is a guy who was good enough to get a max contract extension. He's the 4th option on the Nuggets, but as the Robin for a middling Eastern playoff team we'd be seeing him get 20ppg+. Ge certainly wouldn't be getting benched for a random journeyman forward. Parker got better of course. In 04 he was likely better than MPJ, in 05 he definitely was. In 03 though? Not a chance. Ditto Manu. Manu was better in 04, and in 05 he broke out and started playing like an all-star, but in 03 he was an inconsistent rookie.

The much bigger issue is you can't have it both ways. You can't argue that D.Rob/M.Rose/S.Jax were really important defensively, but then ignore how all 3 were replaced by 3 notoriously poor/lazy defensive players and the team's defence got better. The 2 positions are mutually exclusive.

Normally when guys leave a team it's not as easy to do a before/after, but here it is easy to do. The Spurs replaced their starting 5, back-up 4, and utility wing, with 3 worse defensive players... and the defense got better. Not only that, their defensive rating got MUCH better the following year. Then in 05, despite rule changes to boost offense, the defensive rating was STILL better than in 03. Hedo is a notoriously bad defender. Horry is a notoriously lazy RS defender who only tries hard in the playoffs. Rasho was a solid 5, with some minor offensive talent who could block some shots, but was notoriously poor on defence overall.

Clearly the loss of D.Rob/Malik/S.Jax/Speedy didn't matter defensively, and they certainly weren't good offensive players in 03. Meanwhile we know the Nuggets are worse off without Jokic 4 other starters, because we got to see the results (eg in 2022). Heck, the whole excuse for Jokic only having 1 ring is that these other guys weren't there to support him for past losses. Duncan on the other hand could carry the Spurs to 58 wins and contention with the rubbish he had in 02 and 03. Because he was more impactful.

[MavsDirk41]

You just fail to understand context. In every basketball game there are points to be had. Ricky Davis once averaged 20ppg. He was a terrible basketball player nonetheless. What is important is the context in which you get those points, and what value they bring to the team.

The context here is that the Spurs were hitting open baskets generated for them by Duncan, and without Duncan the team would have been a 20 win type team. That’s not to say there isn’t value in hitting open shots (albeit inconsistently), there obviously is, but it doesn’t tell us much about the players value. Anthony Morrow could hit open shots, he was still a terrible basketball player. Your approach of adding up box score counting stats to tell us how valuable a player was is not sound.

To provide a more nuanced consideration of player value I asked:

1) How did the team do with/without them?
2) How did the rest of the NBA value these players?

I noted that most of the supposedly “elite defensive players” left after 2003, and that the Spurs defensive rating actually went up the following 2 years compared to 2003. It seems odd that guys like D.Rob, S.Jax, M.Rose, Claxton, etc, were such valuable defensive players, yet were replaced with worse defensive players (like Rasho, Hedo, Horry, etc) and the team’s defence got better. It’s also odd that D.Rob was supposedly an “elite defensive player”, and yet the Spurs went 15-3 in games he didn’t play in 2003, or that the Spurs went 10-3 in games rookie Manu didn’t play. Then when it came time for teams to let their wallets do the talking, nobody really wanted to pay the Spurs like S.Jax or Speedy or M.Rose or Bowen. They were not seen as that valuable. Even Manu, after his 2nd year, was not valued in the free agent market anything like an all-star, because his break out hadn’t happened yet. In 03 he was a jittery and unreliable role player still.

To my eyes Duncan was that team. The entire offense ran through him, and everyone scored through overlaps and open shots/space he created when he was doubled on almost every possession. The defence was also Duncan. Other guys came and went, and the Defence stayed the same or got better, because Duncan was anchoring the whole thing. So when you say “Bob Bobberson got 12 key points in a playoff game”, I say we need to put that in content. The context is Bobberson is nothing special, he’s just able to hit the open shots Duncan is creating for him and do little else. It’s not that valuable a skill. In contrast the Nuggets players are very valuable, and the market for them reflected that.

You have consistently tried to change the topic, e.g. to discuss who “had the best bench”. I don’t think it matters who had the best bench, it matters who had the best team. When Your 4th best guy is better than the Spurs 2nd best guy, it doesn’t matter much who your 8th man is; not that the Spurs had a great 8th man, it’s just a distraction from the real topic. The Nuggets have the far superior support cast as a whole, and like with most support casts the guys 2-5 matter exponentially more than who you have 6-8, especially in the playoffs when 6-8 are barely playing. I don’t even know who you think the 6-8 guys on the Spurs were that were good, but I also don’t really care as I just explained.

I never said every player on the 2003 Spurs championship team was an elite defender. Duncan anchored the defense like Jokic anchors the Nuggets offense. Take Jokic off this Nuggets team and they are a lottery team. Same with taking Duncan off the 2003 Spurs team. But the Spurs role players fed off Duncan and as a unit and the team was top 3 defensively in the nba that year. It seems odd that you trash Malik Rose and Ginobli but did you know that Rose was top 4 in 6 man of the year voting in 01/02 and top 6 in 6 man of the year voting in 02/03? Did you know Ginobli was voted top 4 in rookie of the year voting in 02/03? Rose and Ginobli were far better role/bench players than any bench player on this Denver Nuggets team and thats not debateable at all.

And are you trying to say Porter Jr. is better than Tony Parker was for the champion Spurs? Lol again you didnt watch those Spurs teams play. I know that 100% from what you post on here. Its flat out comical.

Minor points first:
1) The Nuggets would still be a play-in type team without Jokic. Certainly in the East they would. They wouldn't be worst in the league territory like the 02 or 03 Spurs without Duncan.
2) That Malik Rose vote for 6moy was terrible.
3) MPJ over the last 2 seasons has been much better than sophomore Tony Parker. Tony Parker was so unreliable in 2003 that in the finals he was benched for a below average journeyman named Speedy Claxton. You'd know that if you'd watched the games. MPJ is a guy who was good enough to get a max contract extension. He's the 4th option on the Nuggets, but as the Robin for a middling Eastern playoff team we'd be seeing him get 20ppg+. Ge certainly wouldn't be getting benched for a random journeyman forward. Parker got better of course. In 04 he was likely better than MPJ, in 05 he definitely was. In 03 though? Not a chance. Ditto Manu. Manu was better in 04, and in 05 he broke out and started playing like an all-star, but in 03 he was an inconsistent rookie.

The much bigger issue is you can't have it both ways. You can't argue that D.Rob/M.Rose/S.Jax were really important defensively, but then ignore how all 3 were replaced by 3 notoriously poor/lazy defensive players and the team's defence got better. The 2 positions are mutually exclusive.

Normally when guys leave a team it's not as easy to do a before/after, but here it is easy to do. The Spurs replaced their starting 5, back-up 4, and utility wing, with 3 worse defensive players... and the defense got better. Not only that, their defensive rating got MUCH better the following year. Then in 05, despite rule changes to boost offense, the defensive rating was STILL better than in 03. Hedo is a notoriously bad defender. Horry is a notoriously lazy RS defender who only tries hard in the playoffs. Rasho was a solid 5, with some minor offensive talent who could block some shots, but was notoriously poor on defence overall.

Clearly the loss of D.Rob/Malik/S.Jax/Speedy didn't matter defensively, and they certainly weren't good offensive players in 03. Meanwhile we know the Nuggets are worse off without Jokic 4 other starters, because we got to see the results (eg in 2022). Heck, the whole excuse for Jokic only having 1 ring is that these other guys weren't there to support him for past losses. Duncan on the other hand could carry the Spurs to 58 wins and contention with the rubbish he had in 02 and 03. Because he was more impactful.

The Nuggets would not be a play in team without Jokic so just stop with that nonsense cause it isnt true. Without Jokic i think they are a 20 something win team and there is nothing factual you can say to disprove this so move along. Only Murray can create his own shot offensively other than Jokic he typically has injury issues.

Malik Rose was a good bench player who was a 4 and small ball 5. Yes i watched nba basketball in 03 pal. He could rebound, defend, and was a hustle type player. Your opinion and like 100% of everything you say on here i disagree with your opinion. What player on Denvers bench is better than Rose? Ill make this easy - none.

Porter is a one dimensional offensive player who is hot and cold and when he is cold, he provides nothing. Porter is a 6’10” Tim Hardaway Jr. I take 03 Parker over Porter 7 days of the week. Just on basketball IQ alone Parker is miles ahead of the chucker Porter lol. Porter has never shown that he could be a Robin on any team lol. He is a worse version of Kuzma. What Porter are you watching lol?

You keep saying they were replaced by other players the nexr year: news flash! Who cares? They were part of a very good defense and they contributed! Argue all you want but its facts! You keep saying Rubbish lol? Why do you keep saying Rubbish?

Bottom line is similar to a team like the 2011 Dallas Mavericks the 2003 Spurs were led by a superstar player with a very very good supporting cast mixed with some young players and veteran players. They were execellent defensively under the defensive anchor of Duncan but they all contributed and played their roles very well. There is nothing that you can argue to contradict that. Move along.

[One_and_Done]

As expected; 3 paragraphs on the minor points and 1 line on the big one.

I will ask you again: if the impact of those role players on D was so important, why did the Spurs defensive rating improve substantially after they left?

[Godymas]

i cannot put him above Hakeem Olajuwon

i cannot put him above Shaquille O'Neal

i can put him on the same tier as David Robinson

[MavsDirk41]

As expected; 3 paragraphs on the minor points and 1 line on the big one.

I will ask you again: if the impact of those role players on D was so important, why did the Spurs defensive rating improve substantially after they left?

They were top 3 in major defensive categories in 02/03 and ranked number #1 overall defensively in major categories in 03/04. Soooo yes they improved defensively in 03/04 but they were great both years. Until you can provide factual evidence that Ginobli and Rose DID NOT contribute to the Spurs defensive success in 02/03 dont bother responding.

Hint: factual evidence not your opinion like 99.9% of what you post on here

[kingmalaki]

No coach or GM today would take Joker over half the guys y'all are comparing him to. Winning in a different time vs different (and arguably worse) competition doesn't make you better.

[MrBigShot]

With the way murray is playing? Perhaps only behind Shaq, Kareem,, Hakeem.