2003 Tim Duncan is transported to 2024 NBA

[dj20001]

The claim is. We can go through the numbers. Every box composite number, every true advanced metric, MVP voter share, DPOY voter share, more team wins, and so on and so fourth. Even if we get into the intagebles. Duncan was just a better leader, easier to build around, and so on.

Better leader, easier to build around yet ended up with how many rings? Duncan went back to back as well right? I'm assuming he had a decent stretch of his career without Ginobili, POP, Parker and then Kawhi to finish things off - that definitely didn't contribute to his win count right?

Kobe was super easy to build around, the Lakers were just inept for the most part at doing so. They got Pau Gasol and went on a run. That's far less than the Spurs supporting cast during that run and Kobe beat TD in the playoffs during this time as well. Who trades Eddie Jones and Elden Campbell for a washed Glen Rice? Trading first round picks for older vets. I could go on and on, but Kobe was able to win IN SPITE of the Lakers FO. Duncan was in a much more competent situation, period.

It's all good not to agree with someone. You're leaving out relevant context though.

The lakers were gifted Gasol in one of the most absurd trades ever. The lakers weren't inept, Kobe was without a doubt harder to build around. And I don't give a damn about rings, that's too small a metric to judge a player on. THat's why wins is a better metric.

How is it absurd when Pau's brother ended up having a comparable career? The Grizzlies insisted he be included so clearly they knew what was going on. Gasol was also maybe the Lakers 4th or 5th choice to bring in next to Kobe. His accomplishments, at the time, paled in comparison to KG, Kidd, O'Neal and Bosh, who they were originally trying to trade for but the asking prices were too high.

Wins are impacted by teammates and consistency, which brings context into the mix. You haven't listed any of the relevant Laker context, context that would give you second thoughts about basing your claim on something like regular season wins to begin with.

[dhsilv2]

Better leader, easier to build around yet ended up with how many rings? Duncan went back to back as well right? I'm assuming he had a decent stretch of his career without Ginobili, POP, Parker and then Kawhi to finish things off - that definitely didn't contribute to his win count right?

Kobe was super easy to build around, the Lakers were just inept for the most part at doing so. They got Pau Gasol and went on a run. That's far less than the Spurs supporting cast during that run and Kobe beat TD in the playoffs during this time as well. Who trades Eddie Jones and Elden Campbell for a washed Glen Rice? Trading first round picks for older vets. I could go on and on, but Kobe was able to win IN SPITE of the Lakers FO. Duncan was in a much more competent situation, period.

It's all good not to agree with someone. You're leaving out relevant context though.

The lakers were gifted Gasol in one of the most absurd trades ever. The lakers weren't inept, Kobe was without a doubt harder to build around. And I don't give a damn about rings, that's too small a metric to judge a player on. THat's why wins is a better metric.

How is it absurd when Pau's brother ended up having a comparable career? The Grizzlies insisted he be included so clearly they knew what was going on. Gasol was also maybe the Lakers 4th or 5th choice to bring in next to Kobe. His accomplishments, at the time, paled in comparison to KG, Kidd, O'Neal and Bosh, who they were originally trying to trade for but the asking prices were too high.

Wins are impacted by teammates and consistency, which brings context into the mix. You haven't listed any of the relevant Laker context, context that would give you second thoughts about basing your claim on something like regular season wins to begin with.

Nobody thought Pau's fat brother was going to be anything close to what he was. I'm not going to really spend time debating nuanced context while you're out there just throwing out names of spurs without context. There's simple not coherent argument you can make with any objective standards that will argue for Kobe being better over their careers than Duncan. Some seasons sure. But career vs career, it's just not a debate. The best you could do is argue that Duncan's career was better because it's easier to be a better basketball player by being tall. And that's fair, but Duncan was taller and that's that.

[70sFan]

Oh my fam, you know the Spurs real well, but not the Lakers at all. Some good rebuttals here for sure though.

Enlighten me then.

[TacoLord]

Tim Duncan is dead??? RIP

[dj20001]

Oh my fam, you know the Spurs real well, but not the Lakers at all. Some good rebuttals here for sure though.

Enlighten me then.

Which season would you like to start with? There's ten from 2000-2010.

You provided an awesome ESPN type synopsis of the 2000s Lakers though. Anyone who wasn't a fan of the Lakers or who weren't watching their games with any type of regularity would definitely agree.

[dj20001]

The lakers were gifted Gasol in one of the most absurd trades ever. The lakers weren't inept, Kobe was without a doubt harder to build around. And I don't give a damn about rings, that's too small a metric to judge a player on. THat's why wins is a better metric.

How is it absurd when Pau's brother ended up having a comparable career? The Grizzlies insisted he be included so clearly they knew what was going on. Gasol was also maybe the Lakers 4th or 5th choice to bring in next to Kobe. His accomplishments, at the time, paled in comparison to KG, Kidd, O'Neal and Bosh, who they were originally trying to trade for but the asking prices were too high.

Wins are impacted by teammates and consistency, which brings context into the mix. You haven't listed any of the relevant Laker context, context that would give you second thoughts about basing your claim on something like regular season wins to begin with.

Nobody thought Pau's fat brother was going to be anything close to what he was. I'm not going to really spend time debating nuanced context while you're out there just throwing out names of spurs without context. There's simple not coherent argument you can make with any objective standards that will argue for Kobe being better over their careers than Duncan. Some seasons sure. But career vs career, it's just not a debate. The best you could do is argue that Duncan's career was better because it's easier to be a better basketball player by being tall. And that's fair, but Duncan was taller and that's that.

And what was Pau exactly at the time of that trade? A one time all star, no time all NBA or all defense type of player? What was he actually worth? This is what you have to cut against my argument that Kobe was better than Duncan?

I don't know who random Spurs players are. I've focused on the three hall of fame players and POP. Get a clue fam.

[One_and_Done]

To answer the thread prompt:

Duncan would be awesome today, but he shouldn't be volume scoring in most circumstances even at the peak of his powers.

That's actually not an answer to where he would rank.

[70sFan]

Oh my fam, you know the Spurs real well, but not the Lakers at all. Some good rebuttals here for sure though.

Enlighten me then.

Which season would you like to start with? There's ten from 2000-2010.

You provided an awesome ESPN type synopsis of the 2000s Lakers though. Anyone who wasn't a fan of the Lakers or who weren't watching their games with any type of regularity would definitely agree.

Just do it.

[dj20001]

Enlighten me then.

Which season would you like to start with? There's ten from 2000-2010.

You provided an awesome ESPN type synopsis of the 2000s Lakers though. Anyone who wasn't a fan of the Lakers or who weren't watching their games with any type of regularity would definitely agree.

Just do it.

You mentioned what Kobe did or didn't do in the 2000 Finals. If I'm not mistaken, he sprained his ankle (which takes weeks to heal in 2024) but came back to play in the very next game and took on the main defensive matchups in that series - Rose and Miller. Then Shaq fouls out in Indy and Kobe takes over in OT and LA wins. But you're focused on his scoring average.

2001, 2002 - there's nothing to be said here.

2003 - Kobe has his best season to date, but Lakers lose to your Spurs. Shaq is taking time off during the season instead of taking care of his body during the off season.

2004 - Rape case, Colorado. Lakers make the Finals but Kobe loses his damn mind v the Pistons. Lakers don't win that series regardless bc the depth absolutely sucked but you can definitely hold that against Kobe.

2005 - Missed playoffs, Shaq gone. Kobe hurt for a majority of the year. Second best player is Lamar Odom. Starting PG is Chucky Atkins. Chris Mihm at C. I'm sure Duncan would have done wonders with this squad.

2006-2007 - Dude went CRAZY. Same crappy roster, added a young Bynum and Vladimir Radmonovic, previously of Sonics fame. Luke Walton is the starting SF along with Smush Parker at PG. Kwame Brown or Mihm at C depending on who was available. Lamar Odom has admitted to having a drug issue during this span. Kobe gets blasted for losing to the Suns even though it was 2/7 matchup. I know for a fact Tim Duncan would have gone bonkers with this Lakers roster.

2008-2010 - Three straight Finals appearances, back to back dubs. The GREAT Pau Gasol joins the squad, somehow viewed as an underpay for a one time all star, no time anything else at that point in the league. Kobe gets one, one time all star and immediately makes the Finals and then wins the next two. Swapping Ariza for Artest is the beginning of the end. Duncan wouldn't have made the Finals any of the years with this roster and Pau would not have been traded for.

2011 - Cash money records man. Dude's body is toast. Lakers try to make 4 straight Finals and are swept. Somehow fans are supposed to feel bad about this, like the Lakers didn't just finish a run. A younger, and likely more talented Heat team meets the same fate.

Then once Kobe fazed out, your guy Duncan was able to get back in. Albeit with two hall of fame players (not young pups), Pop and Kawhi. His impact in the Finals guarding LBJ is undeniable. TD wouldn't have been in this position to win this late into his career in LA, however, because for the most part they didn't know what they were doing.

So I'm supposed to agree, that I'm overrating a player who was in the Finals 7 out of 12 seasons? Winning 5 of them? And this includes a three year stretch of not making the playoffs at all, then losing in the first round the next two seasons?

[Bornstellar]

Which season would you like to start with? There's ten from 2000-2010.

You provided an awesome ESPN type synopsis of the 2000s Lakers though. Anyone who wasn't a fan of the Lakers or who weren't watching their games with any type of regularity would definitely agree.

Just do it.

You mentioned what Kobe did or didn't do in the 2000 Finals. If I'm not mistaken, he sprained his ankle (which takes weeks to heal in 2024) but came back to play in the very next game and took on the main defensive matchups in that series - Rose and Miller. Then Shaq fouls out in Indy and Kobe takes over in OT and LA wins. But you're focused on his scoring average.

2001, 2002 - there's nothing to be said here.

2003 - Kobe has his best season to date, but Lakers lose to your Spurs. Shaq is taking time off during the season instead of taking care of his body during the off season.

2004 - Rape case, Colorado. Lakers make the Finals but Kobe loses his damn mind v the Pistons. Lakers don't win that series regardless bc the depth absolutely sucked but you can definitely hold that against Kobe.

2005 - Missed playoffs, Shaq gone. Kobe hurt for a majority of the year. Second best player is Lamar Odom. Starting PG is Chucky Atkins. Chris Mihm at C. I'm sure Duncan would have done wonders with this squad.

2006-2007 - Dude went CRAZY. Same crappy roster, added a young Bynum and Vladimir Radmonovic, previously of Sonics fame. Luke Walton is the starting SF along with Smush Parker at PG. Kwame Brown or Mihm at C depending on who was available. Lamar Odom has admitted to having a drug issue during this span. Kobe gets blasted for losing to the Suns even though it was 2/7 matchup. I know for a fact Tim Duncan would have gone bonkers with this Lakers roster.

2008-2010 - Three straight Finals appearances, back to back dubs. The GREAT Pau Gasol joins the squad, somehow viewed as an underpay for a one time all star, no time anything else at that point in the league. Kobe gets one, one time all star and immediately makes the Finals and then wins the next two. Swapping Ariza for Artest is the beginning of the end. Duncan wouldn't have made the Finals any of the years with this roster and Pau would not have been traded for.

2011 - Cash money records man. Dude's body is toast. Lakers try to make 4 straight Finals and are swept. Somehow fans are supposed to feel bad about this, like the Lakers didn't just finish a run. A younger, and likely more talented Heat team meets the same fate.

Then once Kobe fazed out, your guy Duncan was able to get back in. Albeit with two hall of fame players (not young pups), Pop and Kawhi. His impact in the Finals guarding LBJ is undeniable. TD wouldn't have been in this position to win this late into his career in LA, however, because for the most part they didn't know what they were doing.

So I'm supposed to agree, that I'm overrating a player who was in the Finals 7 out of 11 seasons? Winning 5 of them? And this includes a three year stretch of not making the playoffs at all, then losing in the first round the next two seasons?

I like how you criticize 70sFan, who probably has seen 100x more NBA games in his life, for an "ESPN type synopsis of the 2000s Lakers" and then you proceed to give a very weak ESPN type synopsis of the 2000s Lakers with additional Kobefan-specific sarcastic commentary to prop Kobe up

[dj20001]

Just do it.

You mentioned what Kobe did or didn't do in the 2000 Finals. If I'm not mistaken, he sprained his ankle (which takes weeks to heal in 2024) but came back to play in the very next game and took on the main defensive matchups in that series - Rose and Miller. Then Shaq fouls out in Indy and Kobe takes over in OT and LA wins. But you're focused on his scoring average.

2001, 2002 - there's nothing to be said here.

2003 - Kobe has his best season to date, but Lakers lose to your Spurs. Shaq is taking time off during the season instead of taking care of his body during the off season.

2004 - Rape case, Colorado. Lakers make the Finals but Kobe loses his damn mind v the Pistons. Lakers don't win that series regardless bc the depth absolutely sucked but you can definitely hold that against Kobe.

2005 - Missed playoffs, Shaq gone. Kobe hurt for a majority of the year. Second best player is Lamar Odom. Starting PG is Chucky Atkins. Chris Mihm at C. I'm sure Duncan would have done wonders with this squad.

2006-2007 - Dude went CRAZY. Same crappy roster, added a young Bynum and Vladimir Radmonovic, previously of Sonics fame. Luke Walton is the starting SF along with Smush Parker at PG. Kwame Brown or Mihm at C depending on who was available. Lamar Odom has admitted to having a drug issue during this span. Kobe gets blasted for losing to the Suns even though it was 2/7 matchup. I know for a fact Tim Duncan would have gone bonkers with this Lakers roster.

2008-2010 - Three straight Finals appearances, back to back dubs. The GREAT Pau Gasol joins the squad, somehow viewed as an underpay for a one time all star, no time anything else at that point in the league. Kobe gets one, one time all star and immediately makes the Finals and then wins the next two. Swapping Ariza for Artest is the beginning of the end. Duncan wouldn't have made the Finals any of the years with this roster and Pau would not have been traded for.

2011 - Cash money records man. Dude's body is toast. Lakers try to make 4 straight Finals and are swept. Somehow fans are supposed to feel bad about this, like the Lakers didn't just finish a run. A younger, and likely more talented Heat team meets the same fate.

Then once Kobe fazed out, your guy Duncan was able to get back in. Albeit with two hall of fame players (not young pups), Pop and Kawhi. His impact in the Finals guarding LBJ is undeniable. TD wouldn't have been in this position to win this late into his career in LA, however, because for the most part they didn't know what they were doing.

So I'm supposed to agree, that I'm overrating a player who was in the Finals 7 out of 11 seasons? Winning 5 of them? And this includes a three year stretch of not making the playoffs at all, then losing in the first round the next two seasons?

I like how you criticize 70sFan, who probably has seen 100x more NBA games in his life, for an "ESPN type synopsis of the 2000s Lakers" and then you proceed to give a very weak ESPN type synopsis of the 2000s Lakers with additional Kobefan-specific sarcastic commentary to prop Kobe up

Other than you not agreeing, no lies were told.

Had they included any relevant context in their post, I wouldn't have added it. A great post, just completely lacking what someone else might have said.

[Doctor MJ]

To answer the thread prompt:

Duncan would be awesome today, but he shouldn't be volume scoring in most circumstances even at the peak of his powers.

That's actually not an answer to where he would rank.

That's true.

[70sFan]

You mentioned what Kobe did or didn't do in the 2000 Finals. If I'm not mistaken, he sprained his ankle (which takes weeks to heal in 2024) but came back to play in the very next game and took on the main defensive matchups in that series - Rose and Miller. Then Shaq fouls out in Indy and Kobe takes over in OT and LA wins. But you're focused on his scoring average.

I'm well aware of Kobe injury in 2000 finals, I watched the series a few months ago.

I am focused on scoring because the other poster didn't bring any context to Duncan averaging 13 ppg. I am the last person you can accuse on focusing on scoring alone, but the context of the conversation was very clear. If he wanted to ignore the context in a bad faith, I felt I should do the same.

2003 - Kobe has his best season to date, but Lakers lose to your Spurs. Shaq is taking time off during the season instead of taking care of his body during the off season.

OK, but that doesn't change anything I said. Kobe still had a solid team around him and Shaq still played like a superstar in the playoffs.

2005 - Missed playoffs, Shaq gone. Kobe hurt for a majority of the year. Second best player is Lamar Odom. Starting PG is Chucky Atkins. Chris Mihm at C. I'm sure Duncan would have done wonders with this squad.

Duncan wouldn't do wonders with this team, especially because he dealt with injuries that season. It's the first season in Kobe's career when he played with a bad supporting cast and the first one when he's clearly the best player on his team. I don't hold missing playoffs against him. I also don't see any reason to put Kobe ahead Duncan.

2006-2007 - Dude went CRAZY. Same crappy roster, added a young Bynum and Vladimir Radmonovic, previously of Sonics fame. Luke Walton is the starting SF along with Smush Parker at PG. Kwame Brown or Mihm at C depending on who was available. Lamar Odom has admitted to having a drug issue during this span. Kobe gets blasted for losing to the Suns even though it was 2/7 matchup. I know for a fact Tim Duncan would have gone bonkers with this Lakers roster.

These two seasons Kobe didn't have much help and I praise him for winning enough games to make the playoffs. After these two seasons, he would never have had another one with weak team around him until he left his prime.

Duncan wouldn't have won much with these teams, but it doesn't mean Kobe was better during that time.

2008-2010 - Three straight Finals appearances, back to back dubs. The GREAT Pau Gasol joins the squad, somehow viewed as an underpay for a one time all star, no time anything else at that point in the league. Kobe gets one, one time all star and immediately makes the Finals and then wins the next two. Swapping Ariza for Artest is the beginning of the end.

Amazing stretch, by far the best in Kobe's career.

You are selling his team a bit short though. Pau was a legitimate all-star level player then, no matter what voters who never watch Grizzlies games think. They also had very deep team with Odom, Ariza/Artest and many solid roleplayers, on top of arguably the most accomplished coach in the history of the league.

It's not a superteam by any means, but it's far from a weak cast.

Duncan wouldn't have made the Finals any of the years with this roster and Pau would not have been traded for.

I don't see 2008-10 Lakers to be any less talented than 2007 Spurs.

So I'm supposed to agree, that I'm overrating a player who was in the Finals 7 out of 12 seasons? Winning 5 of them? And this includes a three year stretch of not making the playoffs at all, then losing in the first round the next two seasons?

I think you didn't understand the context of my original post. My point wasn't to show that Kobe sucked, only that by his own criteria, Kobe shouldn't even touch top 10 - criteria that are completely ridiculous.

To be honest, I expected a little more. These are all very well known facts and you didn't teach me anything new. If you honestly thought that I didn't know about tough moments in 2005-07 or that I didn't know Lakers success after that or that I lacked the idea of how their rosters were built, then you sold me way too short here. I'm basketball history geek, I can tell you these things in sleep.

[OdomFan]

but im wondering how that would work. You said 2003 Tim Duncan is transported over. So does that mean Greg Popovich has no memory of his time with Duncan in 1998-2003 and beyond that? Realistically i think Pop would trade practically the whole team to pair Duncan next to Wemby.

Then build from there.

[dj20001]

You mentioned what Kobe did or didn't do in the 2000 Finals. If I'm not mistaken, he sprained his ankle (which takes weeks to heal in 2024) but came back to play in the very next game and took on the main defensive matchups in that series - Rose and Miller. Then Shaq fouls out in Indy and Kobe takes over in OT and LA wins. But you're focused on his scoring average.

I'm well aware of Kobe injury in 2000 finals, I watched the series a few months ago.

I am focused on scoring because the other poster didn't bring any context to Duncan averaging 13 ppg. I am the last person you can accuse on focusing on scoring alone, but the context of the conversation was very clear. If he wanted to ignore the context in a bad faith, I felt I should do the same.

2003 - Kobe has his best season to date, but Lakers lose to your Spurs. Shaq is taking time off during the season instead of taking care of his body during the off season.

OK, but that doesn't change anything I said. Kobe still had a solid team around him and Shaq still played like a superstar in the playoffs.

2005 - Missed playoffs, Shaq gone. Kobe hurt for a majority of the year. Second best player is Lamar Odom. Starting PG is Chucky Atkins. Chris Mihm at C. I'm sure Duncan would have done wonders with this squad.

Duncan wouldn't do wonders with this team, especially because he dealt with injuries that season. It's the first season in Kobe's career when he played with a bad supporting cast and the first one when he's clearly the best player on his team. I don't hold missing playoffs against him. I also don't see any reason to put Kobe ahead Duncan.

2006-2007 - Dude went CRAZY. Same crappy roster, added a young Bynum and Vladimir Radmonovic, previously of Sonics fame. Luke Walton is the starting SF along with Smush Parker at PG. Kwame Brown or Mihm at C depending on who was available. Lamar Odom has admitted to having a drug issue during this span. Kobe gets blasted for losing to the Suns even though it was 2/7 matchup. I know for a fact Tim Duncan would have gone bonkers with this Lakers roster.

These two seasons Kobe didn't have much help and I praise him for winning enough games to make the playoffs. After these two seasons, he would never have had another one with weak team around him until he left his prime.

Duncan wouldn't have won much with these teams, but it doesn't mean Kobe was better during that time.

2008-2010 - Three straight Finals appearances, back to back dubs. The GREAT Pau Gasol joins the squad, somehow viewed as an underpay for a one time all star, no time anything else at that point in the league. Kobe gets one, one time all star and immediately makes the Finals and then wins the next two. Swapping Ariza for Artest is the beginning of the end.

Amazing stretch, by far the best in Kobe's career.

You are selling his team a bit short though. Pau was a legitimate all-star level player then, no matter what voters who never watch Grizzlies games think. They also had very deep team with Odom, Ariza/Artest and many solid roleplayers, on top of arguably the most accomplished coach in the history of the league.

It's not a superteam by any means, but it's far from a weak cast.

Duncan wouldn't have made the Finals any of the years with this roster and Pau would not have been traded for.

I don't see 2008-10 Lakers to be any less talented than 2007 Spurs.

So I'm supposed to agree, that I'm overrating a player who was in the Finals 7 out of 12 seasons? Winning 5 of them? And this includes a three year stretch of not making the playoffs at all, then losing in the first round the next two seasons?

I think you didn't understand the context of my original post. My point wasn't to show that Kobe sucked, only that by his own criteria, Kobe shouldn't even touch top 10 - criteria that are completely ridiculous.

To be honest, I expected a little more. These are all very well known facts and you didn't teach me anything new. If you honestly thought that I didn't know about tough moments in 2005-07 or that I didn't know Lakers success after that or that I lacked the idea of how their rosters were built, then you sold me way too short here. I'm basketball history geek, I can tell you these things in sleep.

I wasn't expecting to teach anyone anything new. The conversation is different when you include context. You didn't include context for Kobe but why would you? That's my job. You did provide context and absolutely nothing new about Duncan. Why? Because you're a Spurs fan and you would know.

We have a difference of opinion when it comes to the supporting cast in 2003-2004 and 2008-2010. Artest was cooked by the time he reached LA and Ariza only had one good year. Bynum was limited by injuries, Lamar to his own admission by drug use.

Regardless of how you view Gasol, it sounds like the same argument I'm trying to make for Kobe - the accolades don't necessarily tell the entire story. Somehow, I don't know what I'm talking about when I do it.

You're only wrong to the ppl that don't agree with you.

[bledredwine]

Plummer, can't do it. 21 years man.

I'd say competing with Jokic for best in the league.

[Tim_Hardawayy]

Easily number 1, but he wouldn’t get to pretend he’s not a center anymore.

[dhsilv2]

How is it absurd when Pau's brother ended up having a comparable career? The Grizzlies insisted he be included so clearly they knew what was going on. Gasol was also maybe the Lakers 4th or 5th choice to bring in next to Kobe. His accomplishments, at the time, paled in comparison to KG, Kidd, O'Neal and Bosh, who they were originally trying to trade for but the asking prices were too high.

Wins are impacted by teammates and consistency, which brings context into the mix. You haven't listed any of the relevant Laker context, context that would give you second thoughts about basing your claim on something like regular season wins to begin with.

Nobody thought Pau's fat brother was going to be anything close to what he was. I'm not going to really spend time debating nuanced context while you're out there just throwing out names of spurs without context. There's simple not coherent argument you can make with any objective standards that will argue for Kobe being better over their careers than Duncan. Some seasons sure. But career vs career, it's just not a debate. The best you could do is argue that Duncan's career was better because it's easier to be a better basketball player by being tall. And that's fair, but Duncan was taller and that's that.

And what was Pau exactly at the time of that trade? A one time all star, no time all NBA or all defense type of player? What was he actually worth? This is what you have to cut against my argument that Kobe was better than Duncan?

I don't know who random Spurs players are. I've focused on the three hall of fame players and POP. Get a clue fam.

We are not family.

Pau was a top 15 player at the time of the trade. 11th in WS, 9th in VORP, and 17th in PER. He was not only on the rise after being hurt the prior year and missing nearly 30 games, but he was a perfect fit with his passing game to complement Kobe. At the time it was a shocker to everyone that they'd trade him for so little given his epic 2006 season.

[dhsilv2]

but im wondering how that would work. You said 2003 Tim Duncan is transported over. So does that mean Greg Popovich has no memory of his time with Duncan in 1998-2003 and beyond that? Realistically i think Pop would trade practically the whole team to pair Duncan next to Wemby.

Then build from there.

I think 2003 Pop would decline that trade. This spurs roster doesn't have much outside of Wemby lol.

[QPR]

He'd definitely be in the top few players. Not sure any version of Duncan has enough of a defensive edge over Jokic to counter for the huge gap between then at the offensive end though.