2003 Tim Duncan is transported to 2024 NBA

[One_and_Done]

Number 1

If 2003 TD play in today’s game. He is still the best player in the league.

Duncan was a low to high post player offensively. That game is outdated now. And TD wasn't a profilic scorer or athletic beast to make up for it in today's era, like a Shaq would. He wasn't versatile either like a KG was.

Alright, so now you take his HOF level defense. Best suited for half court, which the Spurs pre-2010 played exclusively, even more than the teams of the day. Now teams would take him out of the paint, nullifying his defense in several ways. Still elite, but not on the level he was in 2003.

So, now we transport a player than wasn't even the consensus best player in 2003 to the modern game - where the game isn't suited for him like it was in 2003. You expect him to somehow be the best player? How? That makes zero sense. Its an insult to today's players.

Duncan in the 2016 season, his last in the league...at this point barely able to jump over a piece of paper, was still 4th in some RAPM based metrics on defense in the entire league. 2003 Duncan, obviously we never got to see peak Duncan with his knees still fully healthy thanks to that 2000 injury, but he was still extremely explosive vertically and his arm length while not Wemby is very much in the Gobert range.

Now I don't think Duncan has any chance to surpass Jokic and I think him being clearly over Luca, Giannis, or Embiid is questionable. It's not because he wasn't athletic enough (he was) or that the game has changed too much. Defensively Duncan never dropped off from 1998 to 2016. He kept adapting his body bulking in the early 00's when he had to deal with Shaq and then as the league sped up, Duncan leaned out to keep up with the faster pace and needs for more mobility. Always falling back on his exceptional footwork and using his length to never have to gamble.

Duncan was in peak health until the mid 04 injury. After that he stayed in his prime until 07, but he was never quite as healthy as previously. Young Duncan was much more mobile and athletic than Jokic or Embiid. As you note, he dropped weight in 2012 when it became apparent he'd be better served carrying less weight. 2012-14 Duncan was actually better than he'd been in the previous few years as a result.

[ShootersShoot]

Gobert averages 14 nearly. Under 20 some years perhaps but I think a good team would find more than enough plays to let Duncan finish and work down low to score 20+ at his peak. There are 38 guys averaging 20 or more this year.

I think duncan was a pretty impactful player offensively. If we compare him to say, jarett allen or evan mobley, duncan is clearly in a higher tier.

Duncan averaged over 23ppg for the first 10 years he was in the playoffs. Yes he was averaging 40mpg but that was a slower paced era and he was clearly the #1 option on championship contenders. Per 36, he was still averaging over 21ppg in the playoffs for over a decade, and that includes his rookie year.

He's like Mobley but a LOT stronger, and with better shooting touch. Or he's like Allen but a lot stronger with better handles, passing skills and shooting touch. It's fun to picture Duncan in this finisher role but it's hard to think of bigs with as much game as Duncan playing this role.

So he could be a finisher like Mobley/Allen, but add efficient post up scorer, and high post hub. I think offensively, I'd start by looking at bigs like Sabonis, AD, and Bam as a starting place for imagining his game.

Sabonis is a great comparison offensively, especially from a scoring aspect. Sabonis but slightly taller with elite defense would be a pretty darn scary player. I think in this era with the level of shooting, TD could probably get 5apg nightly if not more, but also he would score more than sabonis is currently.

[dhsilv2]

Duncan was a low to high post player offensively. That game is outdated now. And TD wasn't a profilic scorer or athletic beast to make up for it in today's era, like a Shaq would. He wasn't versatile either like a KG was.

Alright, so now you take his HOF level defense. Best suited for half court, which the Spurs pre-2010 played exclusively, even more than the teams of the day. Now teams would take him out of the paint, nullifying his defense in several ways. Still elite, but not on the level he was in 2003.

So, now we transport a player than wasn't even the consensus best player in 2003 to the modern game - where the game isn't suited for him like it was in 2003. You expect him to somehow be the best player? How? That makes zero sense. Its an insult to today's players.

Duncan in the 2016 season, his last in the league...at this point barely able to jump over a piece of paper, was still 4th in some RAPM based metrics on defense in the entire league. 2003 Duncan, obviously we never got to see peak Duncan with his knees still fully healthy thanks to that 2000 injury, but he was still extremely explosive vertically and his arm length while not Wemby is very much in the Gobert range.

Now I don't think Duncan has any chance to surpass Jokic and I think him being clearly over Luca, Giannis, or Embiid is questionable. It's not because he wasn't athletic enough (he was) or that the game has changed too much. Defensively Duncan never dropped off from 1998 to 2016. He kept adapting his body bulking in the early 00's when he had to deal with Shaq and then as the league sped up, Duncan leaned out to keep up with the faster pace and needs for more mobility. Always falling back on his exceptional footwork and using his length to never have to gamble.

Duncan was in peak health until the mid 04 injury. After that he stayed in his prime until 07, but he was never quite as healthy as previously. Young Duncan was much more mobile and athletic than Jokic or Embiid. As you note, he dropped weight in 2012 when it became apparent he'd be better served carrying less weight. 2012-14 Duncan was actually better than he'd been in the previous few years as a result.

Duncan never recovered fully from that injury in 2000. His mobility and vertical game never got to the same level.

[One_and_Done]

Yeh I disagree. Doubtless we could queue up clips to show him looking crazy athletic in post 00 years.

[tsherkin]

How is he worse on offense? Davis is a better finisher, Duncan a better passer and neither are threats outside of 10 feet.

10% worse at the line, worse about ball protection, not as effective a finisher, less range, nor as good a shooter, less efficient overall...

Davis has a slight efficiency edge and Duncan is a better offensive hub. Seems like a wash to me.

2003 Duncan specifically matches up a little better, of course. In general, though, Duncan was worse than Davis on O. Lots of people remember him differently because he won, but that wasn't an ATG offense kind of guy. Later on in his career as he scaled back, things worked out better in that regard for the Spurs. Duncan wasn't a selfish guy, but in general, wasn't the guy you wanted as your offensive hub for maximum efficacy.

TBF, I also keep forgetting that this thread is specifically about 2003 Duncan, which does change things.

You mean considerably worse just because he doesn't jack up 3 pointers like AD and other bigs now? He didn't need 3's in 2003, and wouldn't need them now.

AD doesn't jack up 3 pointers. He's a considerably better 3pt shooter, has more range under the arc and is, in general, a better finisher. But yeah, as I noted above, that gap isn't really a big deal in 2003 specifically.

there's really no one that I can think of that would consistently stop him from getting his midrange jumper

And? He wasn't even that good at hitting those. It was noteworthy in-era more for the fact that Shaq didn't, and he was being used as point of comparison. Duncan was okay as a short mid-range shooter, but nothing remarkable.

He would be a higher tier than AD.

By virtue of health, sure. Certainly not by athleticism. Not a huge difference in rebounding. Defense, definitely Duncan's jam, of course. But yeah, availability was his big deal relative to AD more than anything else.

[Sane]

He would be best in the NBA at guarding Jokic/Embiid. I don't think any of those two can guard him especially well, he's too fundamentally sound and those two are not freakish athletes like Shaq or Hakeem. To be honest I think he'd be a top 3 regular season player and better than that in the playoffs.

[dhsilv2]

Yeh I disagree. Doubtless we could queue up clips to show him looking crazy athletic in post 00 years.

You're wrong a lot, but this is just more proof of it. That injury was a tear to his meniscus and what lead to him limping later in his career. Just because he wasn't limping doesn't mean it didn't impact him when he could compensate to a degree.

[dhsilv2]

How is he worse on offense? Davis is a better finisher, Duncan a better passer and neither are threats outside of 10 feet.

10% worse at the line, worse about ball protection, not as effective a finisher, less range, nor as good a shooter, less efficient overall...

Davis has a slight efficiency edge and Duncan is a better offensive hub. Seems like a wash to me.

2003 Duncan specifically matches up a little better, of course. In general, though, Duncan was worse than Davis on O. Lots of people remember him differently because he won, but that wasn't an ATG offense kind of guy. Later on in his career as he scaled back, things worked out better in that regard for the Spurs. Duncan wasn't a selfish guy, but in general, wasn't the guy you wanted as your offensive hub for maximum efficacy.

TBF, I also keep forgetting that this thread is specifically about 2003 Duncan, which does change things.

You mean considerably worse just because he doesn't jack up 3 pointers like AD and other bigs now? He didn't need 3's in 2003, and wouldn't need them now.

AD doesn't jack up 3 pointers. He's a considerably better 3pt shooter, has more range under the arc and is, in general, a better finisher. But yeah, as I noted above, that gap isn't really a big deal in 2003 specifically.

there's really no one that I can think of that would consistently stop him from getting his midrange jumper

And? He wasn't even that good at hitting those. It was noteworthy in-era more for the fact that Shaq didn't, and he was being used as point of comparison. Duncan was okay as a short mid-range shooter, but nothing remarkable.

He would be a higher tier than AD.

By virtue of health, sure. Certainly not by athleticism. Not a huge difference in rebounding. Defense, definitely Duncan's jam, of course. But yeah, availability was his big deal relative to AD more than anything else.

To be fair both ways. Duncan was at his best a much better passer than AD...but I'm not sure 2003 Duncan was peak passing duncan either.

[dhsilv2]

He would be best in the NBA at guarding Jokic/Embiid. I don't think any of those two can guard him especially well, he's too fundamentally sound and those two are not freakish athletes like Shaq or Hakeem. To be honest I think he'd be a top 3 regular season player and better than that in the playoffs.

Even if you're wrong and don't consider Jokic a freak athlete. Embiid? He's bigger, stronger, and maybe 95% as agile as dream...

[theFireBlanket]

High IQ, high work ethic & skilled. He adapts. No doubts Duncan'd be right there with the best.

[One_and_Done]

Yeh I disagree. Doubtless we could queue up clips to show him looking crazy athletic in post 00 years.

You're wrong a lot, but this is just more proof of it. That injury was a tear to his meniscus and what lead to him limping later in his career. Just because he wasn't limping doesn't mean it didn't impact him when he could compensate to a degree.

It's true if you say so. Plenty of players recover from that injury. If your point is that 26 yr old Duncan was less spry than 23 Duncan, that's true of basically every athlete. I saw no evidence of any meaningful athletic decline until 04 after his foot injury. Whether it led to later injuries is kind of irrelevant.

[70sFan]

How is he worse on offense? Davis is a better finisher, Duncan a better passer and neither are threats outside of 10 feet.

10% worse at the line, worse about ball protection, not as effective a finisher, less range, nor as good a shooter, less efficient overall...

Davis has a slight efficiency edge and Duncan is a better offensive hub. Seems like a wash to me.

2003 Duncan specifically matches up a little better, of course. In general, though, Duncan was worse than Davis on O. Lots of people remember him differently because he won, but that wasn't an ATG offense kind of guy. Later on in his career as he scaled back, things worked out better in that regard for the Spurs. Duncan wasn't a selfish guy, but in general, wasn't the guy you wanted as your offensive hub for maximum efficacy.

TBF, I also keep forgetting that this thread is specifically about 2003 Duncan, which does change things.

You mean considerably worse just because he doesn't jack up 3 pointers like AD and other bigs now? He didn't need 3's in 2003, and wouldn't need them now.

AD doesn't jack up 3 pointers. He's a considerably better 3pt shooter, has more range under the arc and is, in general, a better finisher. But yeah, as I noted above, that gap isn't really a big deal in 2003 specifically.

there's really no one that I can think of that would consistently stop him from getting his midrange jumper

And? He wasn't even that good at hitting those. It was noteworthy in-era more for the fact that Shaq didn't, and he was being used as point of comparison. Duncan was okay as a short mid-range shooter, but nothing remarkable.

He would be a higher tier than AD.

By virtue of health, sure. Certainly not by athleticism. Not a huge difference in rebounding. Defense, definitely Duncan's jam, of course. But yeah, availability was his big deal relative to AD more than anything else.

To be fair both ways. Duncan was at his best a much better passer than AD...but I'm not sure 2003 Duncan was peak passing duncan either.

Duncan developed his passing game a lot during the first years of the league and as I started to track his games, I saw even a notable (although subtle) improvement from 2001/02 to 2002/03. The biggest jump was from 2000/01 to the next season though, his first MVP season was also the first time you could legitimately call him a very good passer.

I think Duncan passing game peaked at the end of the 2000s, probably around 2010 but he was already a better passer than Davis in 2003.

[dhsilv2]

Yeh I disagree. Doubtless we could queue up clips to show him looking crazy athletic in post 00 years.

You're wrong a lot, but this is just more proof of it. That injury was a tear to his meniscus and what lead to him limping later in his career. Just because he wasn't limping doesn't mean it didn't impact him when he could compensate to a degree.

It's true if you say so. Plenty of players recover from that injury. If your point is that 26 yr old Duncan was less spry than 23 Duncan, that's true of basically every athlete. I saw no evidence of any meaningful athletic decline until 04 after his foot injury. Whether it led to later injuries is kind of irrelevant.

No 26 is where most guys peak athletically.

[dhsilv2]

10% worse at the line, worse about ball protection, not as effective a finisher, less range, nor as good a shooter, less efficient overall...



2003 Duncan specifically matches up a little better, of course. In general, though, Duncan was worse than Davis on O. Lots of people remember him differently because he won, but that wasn't an ATG offense kind of guy. Later on in his career as he scaled back, things worked out better in that regard for the Spurs. Duncan wasn't a selfish guy, but in general, wasn't the guy you wanted as your offensive hub for maximum efficacy.

TBF, I also keep forgetting that this thread is specifically about 2003 Duncan, which does change things.



AD doesn't jack up 3 pointers. He's a considerably better 3pt shooter, has more range under the arc and is, in general, a better finisher. But yeah, as I noted above, that gap isn't really a big deal in 2003 specifically.



And? He wasn't even that good at hitting those. It was noteworthy in-era more for the fact that Shaq didn't, and he was being used as point of comparison. Duncan was okay as a short mid-range shooter, but nothing remarkable.



By virtue of health, sure. Certainly not by athleticism. Not a huge difference in rebounding. Defense, definitely Duncan's jam, of course. But yeah, availability was his big deal relative to AD more than anything else.

To be fair both ways. Duncan was at his best a much better passer than AD...but I'm not sure 2003 Duncan was peak passing duncan either.

Duncan developed his passing game a lot during the first years of the league and as I started to track his games, I saw even a notable (although subtle) improvement from 2001/02 to 2002/03. The biggest jump was from 2000/01 to the next season though, his first MVP season was also the first time you could legitimately call him a very good passer.

I think Duncan passing game peaked at the end of the 2000s, probably around 2010 but he was already a better passer than Davis in 2003.

Fully agree, 2007 to me was teh peak of Duncan's passing while still being nearly peak elsewhere.

[tsherkin]

To be fair both ways. Duncan was at his best a much better passer than AD...but I'm not sure 2003 Duncan was peak passing duncan either.

Yes, that's certainly true. Duncan is an ATG, of course, so he brought plenty of the table then and would today, naturally.

[Exp0sed]

With how sweet of a mid range game Duncan had, there is absolutely no reason that would not have extended to the three point line. Factor in his passing and defense, he would be amazing in any era.

Big Duncan fan but I have doubts about whether he could extend his range. He also wasn’t a great mid range player or free throw shooter. Good thing is it wouldn’t be needed.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I agree, Duncan's mechanics and form gives an instinctive feeling he wouldn't be able to extend his range in a league average clip
I don't know if it matters all that much but simply assuming he can extend is range is false - not everyone can..

[og15]

https://youtube.com/shorts/Hxh3tc2oDl8?si=0NSvoZybatwcIWDi

[One_and_Done]

Duncan had a pretty solid jumper as it was.

[ballzboyee]

He's a borderline top 10 player all-time, but it's really hard to say exactly how he would matchup in today's game due to how bigs are used so much on the perimeter more and more. Every team in the league pretty much runs the same scheme where they brings their bigs out to the top the key and uses them to setup high ball screens so their guards run a 5-out motion offense. Obviously, if peak Duncan is in the right system and he develops his perimeter ball-skill game, he's going to be a top five player.

However, if he on a team where the coach prioritizes guard play like Popovich did toward the back-end of Duncan's career, he's going to be like every other big. Duncan is going to be used primarily as a setup man on get action, screens, etc. and watching that swing-swing to the corner like every other big today. On defense he's going to playing drop coverage on the switch. It's totally different kind of defense than what he had to play. That's why I said if he gets put in the wrong team and on the wrong system, he's going to be Brook Lopez, which really isn't even an insult. Lopez is a really good player in today's schemes. The way the scoring is predicated in the league today, you have to shoot 3's. It's not a choice. If you don't shoot x amount of 3's in a game, then you lose. It's not as simple as saying, he's such an all-timer that he's just going to come in and be dominant. Duncan was a true post player -- really he was a center who could have easily fit in the 70's and 80's.

[Mazter]

He's a borderline top 10 player all-time, but it's really hard to say exactly how he would matchup in today's game due to how bigs are used so much on the perimeter more and more.

Didn't it like happen before our eyes...Duncan just turned 28 when in 2004 the change in handcheck rule started the rise of the wing players. While the league improved offensively, Duncan's stats barely skipped a beat. But his impact and the way he was meritted took a serious beating. He still was a superstar, but he gradually went down through the ranks:

Code: Select all

Season      00/01   01/02   02/03   03/04   |   04/05   05/06   06/07   07/08
Age Duncan    24      25      26      27    |     28      29      30      31
League ORtg 103.0   104.5   103.6   102.9   |   106.1   106.2   106.5   107.5
                                            |
Pts/100      30.7    33.5    31.6    32.8   |    32.9    28.9    31.4    30.8
TRB/100      16.8    16.7    17.5    18.3   |    17.9    17.2    16.6    18.0
BLK/100       3.2     3.3     4.0     3.9   |     4.3     3.2     3.7     3.1
TS%          .536    .576    .564    .534   |    .540    .523    .579    .546
                                            |
MVP Shs      .567    .757    .808    .582   |    .258    .026    .222    .020      
All NBA Shs  .981    .994    .989    .971   |    .892    .440    .888    .625
All Def Shs  .690    .690    .759    .569   |    .650    .383    .600    .550


Add the rise of the 3 point shot 10 years later, which basically killed the defensive careers of players like Marc Gasol, Roy Hibbert and Dwight Howard and you can imagine that Duncan really has to reinvent himself to have the same impact he had 20 years ago. Odds are, he wouldn't. My best guess, he would definitely be an All Star, he probably make All NBA and All Defensive, but with his lack of range, he would struggle to be a top 10 player.