2003 Tim Duncan is transported to 2024 NBA

[cupcakesnake]

What in the world are you talking about? Duncan was 33-34 when he scored 13ppg.

You do understand that he was playing 28.4 mpg that season, right? He posted about 17/11/3.5 PER36 that season as Pops began to understand the value of perimeter-oriented offense. That wasn't a decline in ability, that was a strategic shift in how the team was attacking the opposition, entering the ball to Tim more as a decoy or to start motion than anything else. NONE of the starters on that team played more than the 32.4 mpg Parker played, and Tony was 28.

You need to actually know what you're talking about for a player in their given season if you want to attack them for what went down in terms of their productivity.

He scored 13ppg and controlling for pace about 24 per 100, which is basically garbage tier when compared to any other top 10 player. 17ppg per 36 is also garbage tier for a supposed top 5 player. There have been so many players in the NBA that could score 13ppg. It's not special and it is not elite. Even if we take into account the idea that Popovich was somehow holding him back, Duncan career stats aren't that impressive for his position for an all-timer. He was not even Moses Malone level dominant for a big man. Nobody has Moses in the top 5. If he had been a better player, Popovich would not have schemed around him. He's just played for a great franchise with a lot of good payers throughout his career. Spurs were the Duke Blue Devils of the NBA and just reloaded year after year with elite role players and sub all stars that were under the radar. He probably wasn't even the best player his team for most of 2004 to 2014. On-off numbers just suggest he was part of a big three with Manu and Parker and with many years those two having better lineup impacts.

The issue is not whether he is an all-time great because he clearly is. But to say he is top 5 and top 3 in any era is insane to me. Based on what? There is nothing that supports that idea. Even if you look at his championships, he's a committee guy and the stats and awards reflect this. He wasn't the consensus "the man" on his team 2 out of 5 of his championships and his statistical fall off certain seasons is not consistent of an all-time ranking of a top 5 guy. If Jordan or Lebron for any reason had scored 13ppg when they 33 to 34 years old, nobody would make excuses for them. God forbid Kobe scores 13ppg for a season, he would have been excommunicated from the NBA as far as the all-time rankings.

Oh, well, people are free to believe what they want.

For a topic that's specifially about 2003 Tim Duncan, you are oddly fixated on the scoring numbers of 2011 Tim Duncan.

As many others have said, scoring wasn't Duncan's main value. He was pretty good at it, but no one has ever said Tim Duncan was a great all-time volume scorer.

Your on-off argument is a bit misleading. While there are a couple seasons where you can argue for Manu Ginobili's value, it's much harder to find good stretches of data that supports Tony Parker as being the best (or second best) Spur.

[tsherkin]

For a topic that's specifially about 2003 Tim Duncan, you are oddly fixated on the scoring numbers of 2011 Tim Duncan.

Indeed.

[dhsilv2]

Duncan shot a higher %, has one more regular season MVP, maybe one more FMVP, more rebounds and blocks. Some of these categories are biased toward his position of course.

You make it seem as though the claim is blasphemy.

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.

[dhsilv2]

You do understand that he was playing 28.4 mpg that season, right? He posted about 17/11/3.5 PER36 that season as Pops began to understand the value of perimeter-oriented offense. That wasn't a decline in ability, that was a strategic shift in how the team was attacking the opposition, entering the ball to Tim more as a decoy or to start motion than anything else. NONE of the starters on that team played more than the 32.4 mpg Parker played, and Tony was 28.

You need to actually know what you're talking about for a player in their given season if you want to attack them for what went down in terms of their productivity.

He scored 13ppg and controlling for pace about 24 per 100, which is basically garbage tier when compared to any other top 10 player. 17ppg per 36 is also garbage tier for a supposed top 5 player. There have been so many players in the NBA that could score 13ppg. It's not special and it is not elite. Even if we take into account the idea that Popovich was somehow holding him back, Duncan career stats aren't that impressive for his position for an all-timer. He was not even Moses Malone level dominant for a big man. Nobody has Moses in the top 5. If he had been a better player, Popovich would not have schemed around him. He's just played for a great franchise with a lot of good payers throughout his career. Spurs were the Duke Blue Devils of the NBA and just reloaded year after year with elite role players and sub all stars that were under the radar. He probably wasn't even the best player his team for most of 2004 to 2014. On-off numbers just suggest he was part of a big three with Manu and Parker and with many years those two having better lineup impacts.

The issue is not whether he is an all-time great because he clearly is. But to say he is top 5 and top 3 in any era is insane to me. Based on what? There is nothing that supports that idea. Even if you look at his championships, he's a committee guy and the stats and awards reflect this. He wasn't the consensus "the man" on his team 2 out of 5 of his championships and his statistical fall off certain seasons is not consistent of an all-time ranking of a top 5 guy. If Jordan or Lebron for any reason had scored 13ppg when they 33 to 34 years old, nobody would make excuses for them. God forbid Kobe scores 13ppg for a season, he would have been excommunicated from the NBA as far as the all-time rankings.

Oh, well, people are free to believe what they want.

For a topic that's specifially about 2003 Tim Duncan, you are oddly fixated on the scoring numbers of 2011 Tim Duncan.

As many others have said, scoring wasn't Duncan's main value. He was pretty good at it, but no one has ever said Tim Duncan was a great all-time volume scorer.

Your on-off argument is a bit misleading. While there are a couple seasons where you can argue for Manu Ginobili's value, it's much harder to find good stretches of data that supports Tony Parker as being the best (or second best) Spur.

Outside of Charles Barkley, I can't think of anyone who ever thought Parker was better. Parker simply wasn't that special. A solid low level allstar guy who got some all nba's because of team success. Certainly a good player, but had he played elsewhere he'd be pretty forgotten. Manu...now he was a legit star at his best...when he could stay on the floor.

[dhsilv2]

In fact, Duncan & Kawhi have been in commercials.... together. And it's about as bad as you would expect. lol.

[/youtube]

Bad? Those commercials are all time greats!

They play on the fact that they have no personality lol

Hey, greatness is greatness!

Watch on YouTube

[DOT]

Any excuse to post this series:

Watch on YouTube

[NZB2323]

Probably second behind Jokic

Tim Duncan was on the all defensive team 15 tines and on the first team 8 times. Jokic has never had the honor.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

And Giannis won DPOTY and he isn’t as good as Jokic.

[dygaction]

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.

That's completely overblown. He can extend to 3pt line but decrease his value at the same time. Duncan's mid range is nothing special not to speak of sweet, especially compared to Jokic's and Jokic only makes .349 over his career. Based on the comparison below. We are talking about someone who retired in 2016, not a Bill Russell era player.
Duncan:
3-10ft: .447; 10-16ft: .405; 16-3p: .410; 3p: ???
Jokic:
3-10ft: .578; 10-16ft: .507; 16-3p: .458; 3p: .349

[jbsays]

The Heat were a play in team last year...

Duncan
Bam
Robinson (spacing)
Butler
Rozier

Bench: Hero, Jacquez, Martin

He'd be the best player on the team and they'd be the best team in the league.

[One_and_Done]

100%.

What puts Duncan so high on the all-time-rankings is that he was constantly a top-5 player every year. As someone who essentially watched his entire career, I am pretty sure that he almost never was considered to be the best player in any year he played.

Top-5 most of the time, but never No. 1. Kobe, Shaq, LeBron stole No. 1 a lot of the times.
I get why in hindsight a lot of people want to put Duncan at No 1. if he played today. I mean, how can a Borderline Top-7 player of all time not be No 1. now? Well, he just never had these absurd peaks. Was always great, but never the best in any season.

This is completely ahistorical. Duncan was praised as the best player in the whole league as early as his 2nd year. He won 2 MVPs, and when you look at his prime from 98 to 07 he was consistently rated higher than Kobe over that period. Your confusing water cooler talking head chatter with what actually happened.

98- 5th (Kobe didn't even place)
99- 3rd (Kobe didn't even place)
00 - 5th (Kobe 12th)
01- 2nd (Kobe 9th)
02- 1st (Kobe 5th)
03- 1st (Kobe 3rd)
04- 2nd (Kobe 5th)
05- 4th (Kobe didn't even place)
06- 8th (Kobe 4th)
07- 4th (Kobe 3rd)

So you can see Duncan was generally kicking Kobe's ass in the minds of MVP voters over their primes, and Kobe's only 2 finishes over Duncan come right at the tail end of his prime when Duncan was chilling a little mord in the regular season and letting Manu & Parker carry more of the load. MVP voting isn't everything, but it conveys popular sentiment outside LA nicely here.

Those are just popularity awards, and Duncan being Mr. Clean Cut light skinned guy was destined to be a media darling. Kobe completely destroyed Duncan head-to-head in the playoffs.

Duncan is just overrated on RealGM, especially for a big. People have Duncan in the top 5 when he had a season when he should have been still in or close to his prime, and he averaged 13ppg/9reb/2ast, and people think he would be Jokic or Embiid in today's era? As a supposed "superstar," Duncan literally averaged 13ppg for an entire season on a championship-level roster, and people have him in top five all-time?

To be honest, I don't even think Duncan would have the versatility to play on the level of a guy like Karl-Anthony Towns. Duncan was very slow, methodical player on offense and a system guy under Popovich. Where is the idea coming from that he's going able to run and space the floor or attack every level of defense like Embiid with his shooting touch or be quick enough to front the basket like a lot of bigs today with their offensive versatility off the dribble? Or consistently hit a 3-point shot like Jokic or Towns? If you look at guy Towns and Jokic, they shoot like 85% from the line. Duncan had seasons where he was not much better than Shaq from the FT line. He once shot below 60% one season from the line. He was not a great shooter for much his career.

Based upon what would make even him a top three big in today's league, much less a top three player overall? People just have a huge recency bias because of the Spurs win over Lebron's Heat team in the Finals in 2014, and now they ridiculously overrate Duncan. Of course, Lebron wouild have to lose to another top five player and not a guy who got that carried by three other hall of famers and an all-time great coach.

Just looking at his skill sets that he showed while playing, if Duncan had to play like a modern big he would be roughly equivalent or slightly better than Brook Lopez. That's just being honest. The stats that we saw from Duncan when the Spurs went to more of spread 4-out of 1-in system are pretty much what he would have in today's NBA. He would be roughly somewhere between a 15-20ppg scorer and give you maybe 8 to 10 rebounds per game. His assist numbers would go up obviously. His impact defensively would we greatly watered down due to the fact he would no longer be a paint protector because he would pulled out to guard an opposing big on the perimeter. On offense he would be setting high ball screens and rolling off pics shooting 3's (assuming he would be an efficient shooter) or rolling to the basket, which was very similar to what the Spurs were doing when they won their last championship. That year Duncan averaged 15ppg/9reb/3ast.

This idea that Duncan's going to come into this era with these spread systems that are guard oriented and score 30ppg and be top 3 player is just not supported by any facts. There is only one true big in top 20 in scoring and that's Jokic. Giannis and Davis do not count because they both possess guard skill-sets with the ability to put the ball on the floor and dribble-drive to the basket from multiple levels (full court bringing the ball up, iso in half court, and from the post). Duncan was fairly good off the dribble and attacking the basket in a more limited way out of the post, but is Duncan going to be even a top 20 scorer in the league today? No, he's probably not. You can look at guy like Towns who has shot 40% from three for his career, much better free throw shooter than Duncan (Towns has even had a season where he almost shot 90% from the line), and a versatile and all-around skilled offensive player, and Towns is barely in the top 30 in scoring off 16 fga. Sixteen shots per game was roughly Duncan's career volume.

So, no, Duncan definitely not a top three player in this league. He's a good version Brook Lopez. Best case scenario that he would be as Towns on offense (unlikely), and he would still find some way to impact the game defensively like he did when he played. He's not going to be Embiid, Jokic, or even Giannis. All three of those guys are better offensively than Duncan by a pretty big margin.

Kobe didn't play Duncan in the playoffs once during Duncan's prime without Shaq, who was the guy actually matching up to Duncan. Kobe waa taking advantage of the attention Shaq got to eat his leftovers.

Despite his inferior team mates Duncan is 2-3 against Shaq/Kobe in his prime from 98-07, and he outplayed Shaq in at least 3 of those series (99, 03 and 03).

[tsherkin]

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.

The Lakers definitely weren't title material prior to the trade, though. They were, in fact, quite bad around Kobe up until that point, particularly in 05. The trade saved everything for them. They definitely wouldn't have titled with Kobe post-Shaq without Gasol upping the quality of the roster.

Better leader, easier to build around yet ended up with how many rings? Duncan went back to back as well right?

As an MVP, but never in titles.

Kobe was super easy to build around,

That isn't quite true. The follow-on remark about LA's ineptitude for those first few post-Shaq years is (and certainly San Antonio was a much better front office), but remember that Kobe was a difficult personality and not a defensive anchor. Nor was he the best offensive player in the league. So "super easy" is somewhat hyperbolic. That's true of basically any player, but it's progressively more challenging with smaller players. Particularly those who aren't ATG playmakers (though Kobe was still quite good at such for a scoring champion).

[One_and_Done]

Not really, he was on a slow decline

Watching the 99 finals it's astonishing how much better Duncan is. I'll have to break down the plays for one game at some point, or at least a stretch. Duncan is carrying the whole team basically.

Was Robinson that washed?

Looking at the roster besides a aging Sean Elliot they didn't have much firepower. Duncan was HIM even early in his career.

I'll break down a finals game from that yr some time.

[dhsilv2]

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.

The Lakers definitely weren't title material prior to the trade, though. They were, in fact, quite bad around Kobe up until that point, particularly in 05. The trade saved everything for them. They definitely wouldn't have titled with Kobe post-Shaq without Gasol upping the quality of the roster.

Better leader, easier to build around yet ended up with how many rings? Duncan went back to back as well right?

As an MVP, but never in titles.

Kobe was super easy to build around,

That isn't quite true. The follow-on remark about LA's ineptitude for those first few post-Shaq years is (and certainly San Antonio was a much better front office), but remember that Kobe was a difficult personality and not a defensive anchor. Nor was he the best offensive player in the league. So "super easy" is somewhat hyperbolic. That's true of basically any player, but it's progressively more challenging with smaller players. Particularly those who aren't ATG playmakers (though Kobe was still quite good at such for a scoring champion).

Oh the lakers were pretty bad once Shaq left. And the Shaq trade...it was terrible for them, but it was obviously bad. But the incompetency stuff is just misleading. Case and point Bynum was a great draft pick, but that upset people that he wasn't a "ready now" guy. Of course injuries hurt him, but again they without a doubt got a win with a 10th pick.

They were in a short rebuild and it worked out pretty well. Odom would be a central piece in their next title run. Bynum was a good pickup and they were able to get Gasol. Now the spurs were better, but some of that almost came down to just dumb luck. The spurs were about ready to fire Pop and hire Doc as we all know. The spurs could have thrown it all away. Sometimes you just get a bit of luck.

[dhsilv2]

Watching the 99 finals it's astonishing how much better Duncan is. I'll have to break down the plays for one game at some point, or at least a stretch. Duncan is carrying the whole team basically.

Was Robinson that washed?

Looking at the roster besides a aging Sean Elliot they didn't have much firepower. Duncan was HIM even early in his career.

I'll break down a finals game from that yr some time.

Duncan was a better post scorer and it's not very close. Beyond that, Robinson in 99 was still a defensive force and was allowed to play more naturally away from the basket in a faceup role which was what he was best at in the first place.

[One_and_Done]

Yeh I disagree. Duncan carried the 99 Spurs mostly.

[tsherkin]

Oh the lakers were pretty bad once Shaq left. And the Shaq trade...it was terrible for them, but it was obviously bad. But the incompetency stuff is just misleading. Case and point Bynum was a great draft pick, but that upset people that he wasn't a "ready now" guy. Of course injuries hurt him, but again they without a doubt got a win with a 10th pick.

One move doesn't really sell a front office. And of course, we are also ignoring Phil's adherence to the triangle that late in the game. He wanted to impose his brand of basketball which, while particularly effective earlier on, was escaping trends in the contemporary landscape of the time. As we would later see in New York.

They were in a short rebuild and it worked out pretty well.

Because of the Gasol trade specifically.

[dhsilv2]

Yeh I disagree. Duncan carried the 99 Spurs mostly.

Yikes...you just like making wild claims in this thread man. Robinson's defense in those playoffs was superstar level stuff. While still providing quality offense in his more natural 2nd option role.

Per 100 he was 24.8 15.7 4.0 with 3.7 blocks and 2.6 steals. A 23.3 PER, .243 WS/48 and an insane 7.1 BPM.

Robinson was an absolute defensive monster once paired with Timmy, so he could finally not worry about offense and focus on what made him special.

[Doctor MJ]

Duncan saw early versions of the pace and space style (Nash suns and Lebron heat) and he was awesome. He would do just fine in today’s NBA.

So, it's understandable why you'd think this given that the Spurs were known for getting the better of those Suns in the playoffs, but I would argue that there were indeed signs that Duncan struggled against the Suns, and the thing that saved the Spurs tended to be the pacier-spacier guys - most notably Ginobili.

Here are the +/- numbers for the key Spurs & Suns across their 4 playoff series in that era:

Amar'e +42
Ginobili +33
Nash +31
Parker +24
Marion -10
Duncan -12

This is a coarse-grain metric that shouldn't be taken that seriously, but I think anyone who remembers those series remembers that Duncan struggled to handle Amar'e at the very least.

This then to say that folks drew the wrong lesson when they thought "Duncan's team was better than Nash's team". The statement might literally be true, but it's not because Duncan displayed immunity to the concerns we have about big men with pace & space.

I'll also say that I would not consider the Heatles to be pace & space teams, though admittedly they moved more in that direction as the years went on. It's just that the whole league was doing that too. It's worth noting that the Spurs shot more 3's than the Heat in both Finals, and the winner of each series was whoever made the most 3's. Duncan, making zero total 3's between the series, was not helping on this front, and was in general not showing as much resilience in my assessment as guys like Ginobili or Kawhi.

[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.

[JM00n69]

Peak Timmy is top 5 in todays league no question. People forget how athletic Duncan was in the early years. He had a quick first step and when he caught it on the elbow, one dribble to get past his defender and dunk it on whoever was helping. Great post game against anyone and a perennial All Defense first team.

I would love to see him and Jokic square off. He'd have Jok on the offensive end for sure, every time. He was a superb defender but not sure if he'd be strong enough for the deep catches with Jok and his quick passes out of the post. I'd be fun watch for sure.

If I could swap '03 Timmy in for the best player on any team this year- Denver, Dallas (Luka), TWolves (Ant) are probably the only ones I wouldn't. I think the '03 Timmy would be fit better that Giannis on this years Bucks.

Any other team I'd swap him out for their best player.