2003 Tim Duncan is transported to 2024 NBA

[ChipotleWest]

How many years were the Lakers swept out of the playoffs with Shaq as the clear cut best player before their breakthrough? It didn't happen until Kobe made All NBA, not just an "all star" which is what happened with Gasol joined Kobe later down the line.

I don't care about who won FMVP honestly. But winning a championship while averaging under 15 ppg isn't the flex you think - either means LBJ isn't as good as everyone says or the SA supporting cast is better than you're giving credit.

TD ended up matching Kobe bc he played for the more consistent franchise during that period, not bc he was the better individual player. If you switch situations, Duncan would have been finished winning rings after the first three peat with Shaq. Kobe would for sure have matched Duncan's rings from 1998-2010 and then putting him with Parker, Ginobili and Kawhi (regardless) of age is MURDER.

Kobe = 6 or 7 rings easy in SA. Duncan never missed the playoffs and still only has 5 rings.

Ok I can see you're not a serious poster with that last sentence and are just a Kobe fanboy which I should have already figured out. Kobe was not a big and replacing him with Duncan would have been terrible for them. Or don't tell me you're talking about teaming up Kobe with the Spurs that were already winning championships? LOL! Well duh no one said Kobe wasn't a good player he would just add to the fire.

How'd Kobe do those years after Shaq left until he got Gasol?

What do you mean how did he do? Who has more rings than Kobe from 2000-2010? So you're saying he should have even more than everyone else during that span?

You brought up how Shaq did before Kobe, now I'm bringing up how Kobe did after Shaq. Shaq was at least making the playoffs.

[dj20001]

You realize TD averaged 23 ppg or more in both of his MVP seasons right? Seems like scoring, was, at least to some, tied to their view of him as a player.

Sure, but people have overrated volume scoring for a long time. Duncan COULD score, but it wasn't foundational to his identity. On a team where there were more scoring options, why would he continue to demand touches when that wasn't the best skill he had to offer? They didn't win with elite offense in 03, they won with their defense... of which, he was the keystone.

I didn't say it was foundational to his identity, just that him winning MVP also coincided with higher scoring averages. I'm sure he could have won MVP with stats from his "lesser" seasons, but to your point his teammates were so good he didn't have to.

[dj20001]

Ok I can see you're not a serious poster with that last sentence and are just a Kobe fanboy which I should have already figured out. Kobe was not a big and replacing him with Duncan would have been terrible for them. Or don't tell me you're talking about teaming up Kobe with the Spurs that were already winning championships? LOL! Well duh no one said Kobe wasn't a good player he would just add to the fire.

How'd Kobe do those years after Shaq left until he got Gasol?

What do you mean how did he do? Who has more rings than Kobe from 2000-2010? So you're saying he should have even more than everyone else during that span?

You brought up how Shaq did before Kobe, now I'm bringing up how Kobe did after Shaq. Shaq was at least making the playoffs.

Kobe missed the playoffs in 2004-05, one season, and was injured. Somehow went on to win two rings to Shaq's one. And before you even post it - Pau "saved" Kobe in 2010 so that ring doesn't count right?

[dhsilv2]

The other side of the court does. As good and impactful Jokic is on offense is the level of impact Duncan has on defense. Jokic is not a bad defensive player but is nowhere near the same stratosphere as Duncan. And given box score averages don't really capture defensive impact I don't think comparing their theoretical averages makes sense in determining who's better anyway

No player today comes even close to have the same defensive impact as the top guys do on offense.

EPM

Top 5 defense

+4.4
+4.2
+3.7
+3.4
+3.4

Top 5 offense

+7.4
+7.4
+7.2
+6.4
+6.2

LEBRON

Top 5 defense

+3.28
+2.57
+2.5
+2.43
+2.36

Top 5 offense

+6.17
+5.84
+5.38
+5.10
+4.77

The LEBRON database goes back to 2010 and the top defensive season is 2021 Gobert at 5.08, followed by 17 Gobert at 4.55 and then 2010 Howard at 4.4. So only one defensive season in the last 15 years would crack the top 5 and it wouldn't top Jokic's current year offensively.

Outside of your mega stars, offense and defense is pretty 50:50, but at the very top the best players are able to dominate offensively at a higher level. Even if you go back to RAPM data that goes back further, you'll see a few outliers with Ben Wallace and Deke, but otherwise even in the era's where a big man could have more impact it was rare for them to have the impact of the best offensive guys.

I'll just add in, we shouldn't ignore that Jokic is actually a good defender. Not Duncan level by any means, but the narratives of him being poor on that end just aren't supported.

While I appreciate you digging for stats, these are just two stats that don't tell us the whole story and as you said one of them only goes back to 2010. Especially now, due to rule changes and shifting of offense in the last 5-6 years, I would assume the offensive numbers are always going to look better. I'll also point out I never said Jokic was a poor defender (I specifically said he was not a bad defender) but let's also not pretend that Duncan was some slouch on the offensive end either. This also doesn't take into account inherent/immeasurable qualities like leadership, ability to quarterback/communicate on the floor, etc, things Duncan was S-tier at.

I will say that you may not be incorrect, though. Jokic is one of the best players ever and certainly deserves respect when it comes to who would be the best player today in this hypothetical scenario. Tim may not be the #1 player in the league but he would be 2 or 3 AT WORST, imo. I still personally think he would be the best player in the NBA but I recognize that Jokic still has legit arguments. Which is fine, because I've always thought Jokic was the offense version of Tim Duncan in today's NBA

The changes to the game today have made the top offensive players more impactful, but that's because today's offenses make it harder for a top tier defender to have the same impact. That's a huge part of the whole pace and space concepts we see as well as the moves to just not play terrible offensive players with some minor exceptions. And while Duncan doesn't get worse in any meaningful way, he just couldn't have that same level of impact.

RAPM data (and the two metrics I used are just easier to get public RAPM), painted Duncan very well over his career. But he wasn't an outlier. Similarly, to your point on offense. Duncan wasn't that great an offensive player. He was a nice old reliable option. But a top tier offense wasn't going to be run thought Duncan. Just like Jokic won't be the anchor of a top tier defense. And that's ok...they're uniquely different players.

As for intangibles, well Jokic and Duncan are two of the best ever so no need to really go there.

[Capn'O]

He's Tim **** Duncan. He would still be amazing, of course. There would be a discussion of him v. Jokic just like there was with him v. Shaq back in the day.

Watch on YouTube

Well that's more Game of Zones joke I now get.

[dhsilv2]

Who said it was a knock? Its just less than Kobe. And the only way to explain how Kobe won as much as he did is by making the Shaq comment that you made, Parker and Giniboli's age even though they are better than any teammate Kobe had outside of Shaq for his entire career. Duncan one a ring or two with Kawhi also right? But never back to back and has a losing record versus Kobe in the playoffs.

The lack of consistency is laughable.

I'm asking why you made it about a specific decade, and it's unarguable that Duncan was the best player on every championship team except the last one while Kobe wasn't except for two. The last championship was close because he was the defensive anchor averaging 15ppg but the highest ppg was Parker at 16.7, Kawhi was the third highest scorer at 14, there were no 20-25 ppg scorers on that team. Just like Parker and Ginobili in the early 2000s he was getting before prime Kawhi. Kawhi in his prime would be the highest scoring player on the team with 20 ppg easily. They gave Kawhi FInals MVP so call it a three headed team effort of Duncan, Kawhi and Parker with no clear best player but even the biggest Kobe fans don't argue he was the best player over Shaq on those teams.

So just trying to make it Kobe vs. Duncan and and saying Kobe had more rings that decade is completely biased and makes no sense.

You seem to not realize players are different at different stages of their careers. Yes Ginobili and Parker were very good, but in the early 2000s go look at their stats they weren't great yet. It's like just saying well he had David Robinson, it was a David Robinson past his prime after the first championship, very different than Robinson from the 90's.

How many years were the Lakers swept out of the playoffs with Shaq as the clear cut best player before their breakthrough? It didn't happen until Kobe made All NBA, not just an "all star" which is what happened with Gasol joined Kobe later down the line.

I don't care about who won FMVP honestly. But winning a championship while averaging under 15 ppg isn't the flex you think - either means LBJ isn't as good as everyone says or the SA supporting cast is better than you're giving credit.

TD ended up matching Kobe bc he played for the more consistent franchise during that period, not bc he was the better individual player. If you switch situations, Duncan would have been finished winning rings after the first three peat with Shaq. Kobe would for sure have matched Duncan's rings from 1998-2010 and then putting him with Parker, Ginobili and Kawhi (regardless) of age is MURDER.

Kobe = 6 or 7 rings easy in SA. Duncan never missed the playoffs and still only has 5 rings.

Just mind blowing there are still those claiming Kobe was a better player than Duncan.

[dj20001]

I'm asking why you made it about a specific decade, and it's unarguable that Duncan was the best player on every championship team except the last one while Kobe wasn't except for two. The last championship was close because he was the defensive anchor averaging 15ppg but the highest ppg was Parker at 16.7, Kawhi was the third highest scorer at 14, there were no 20-25 ppg scorers on that team. Just like Parker and Ginobili in the early 2000s he was getting before prime Kawhi. Kawhi in his prime would be the highest scoring player on the team with 20 ppg easily. They gave Kawhi FInals MVP so call it a three headed team effort of Duncan, Kawhi and Parker with no clear best player but even the biggest Kobe fans don't argue he was the best player over Shaq on those teams.

So just trying to make it Kobe vs. Duncan and and saying Kobe had more rings that decade is completely biased and makes no sense.

You seem to not realize players are different at different stages of their careers. Yes Ginobili and Parker were very good, but in the early 2000s go look at their stats they weren't great yet. It's like just saying well he had David Robinson, it was a David Robinson past his prime after the first championship, very different than Robinson from the 90's.

How many years were the Lakers swept out of the playoffs with Shaq as the clear cut best player before their breakthrough? It didn't happen until Kobe made All NBA, not just an "all star" which is what happened with Gasol joined Kobe later down the line.

I don't care about who won FMVP honestly. But winning a championship while averaging under 15 ppg isn't the flex you think - either means LBJ isn't as good as everyone says or the SA supporting cast is better than you're giving credit.

TD ended up matching Kobe bc he played for the more consistent franchise during that period, not bc he was the better individual player. If you switch situations, Duncan would have been finished winning rings after the first three peat with Shaq. Kobe would for sure have matched Duncan's rings from 1998-2010 and then putting him with Parker, Ginobili and Kawhi (regardless) of age is MURDER.

Kobe = 6 or 7 rings easy in SA. Duncan never missed the playoffs and still only has 5 rings.

Just mind blowing there are still those claiming Kobe was a better player than Duncan.

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.

[70sFan]

Tim is a top 5 player ever and 2003 was arguably his peak. He would be the best player in the NBA if he was transported to today, especially with a lack of legit big men to really contend with. He'd probably average 25/13/4/2 and be the DPOY every year

That line doesn't put him ahead of Jokic...

No line puts you ahead of Duncan. Lines don't play basketball.

[tsherkin]

I didn't say it was foundational to his identity, just that him winning MVP also coincided with higher scoring averages. I'm sure he could have won MVP with stats from his "lesser" seasons, but to your point his teammates were so good he didn't have to.

Sure, but that wasn't really the point of my remark, so remarks about his scoring aren't really salient here.

ballzboyee was crapping on Duncan because he didn't know what he was talking about as far as Duncan's 2011 season and the whys of things, so I was highlighting what was going on in San Antonio at the time. Yeah, you wouldn't look at Duncan (deployed as he was) as the best player in the league if he were playing 28 mpg and producing like that. That is, however, very different from understanding of what he was capable at that same point in his career. It's just that Pops had a different view of how to use him and Tim was amenable to adapting his game around Manu and Parker.

In his MVP seasons, he was scoring at a level higher than he did in basically any other season of his career, and that strongly contributed to the impact which led to those awards, no doubt.

[dhsilv2]

How many years were the Lakers swept out of the playoffs with Shaq as the clear cut best player before their breakthrough? It didn't happen until Kobe made All NBA, not just an "all star" which is what happened with Gasol joined Kobe later down the line.

I don't care about who won FMVP honestly. But winning a championship while averaging under 15 ppg isn't the flex you think - either means LBJ isn't as good as everyone says or the SA supporting cast is better than you're giving credit.

TD ended up matching Kobe bc he played for the more consistent franchise during that period, not bc he was the better individual player. If you switch situations, Duncan would have been finished winning rings after the first three peat with Shaq. Kobe would for sure have matched Duncan's rings from 1998-2010 and then putting him with Parker, Ginobili and Kawhi (regardless) of age is MURDER.

Kobe = 6 or 7 rings easy in SA. Duncan never missed the playoffs and still only has 5 rings.

Just mind blowing there are still those claiming Kobe was a better player than Duncan.

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.

[dhsilv2]

Tim is a top 5 player ever and 2003 was arguably his peak. He would be the best player in the NBA if he was transported to today, especially with a lack of legit big men to really contend with. He'd probably average 25/13/4/2 and be the DPOY every year

That line doesn't put him ahead of Jokic...

No line puts you ahead of Duncan. Lines don't play basketball.

I'm assuming we all know what Duncan with that line would look like...

[70sFan]

Alright, I will waste my time for at least some answers to this ridiculous post...

What in the world are you talking about? Duncan was 33-34 when he scored 13ppg. At worst that is the the back-end of a prime, and for a big can still be fully prime productive years. Jordan at 35 led the league in scoring at 28ppg and won MVP. Lebron James at 33-34 averaged 28ppg. Kareem around the same aged average 26ppg. People on here are saying Tim Duncan is top 5 all-time and top 3 in any era, but dude literally averaged 13ppg at the same age other top 5 all-time greats were leading the league in scoring and putting up monster numbers.

Yeah and at that age, Bill Russell averaged 12 ppg, while being the best player in the league. What does it prove?

It's amazing to me that Duncan gets so many passes for things that if any other player had their resume, then they would absolutely get killed on the all-time lists. For example, if Kobe Bryant played with four other Hall of Fame players near or in their primes for most of his career

Kobe literally played with multiple HoF players near or in their primes for most of his career.

and made the final multiple times, did not lead his team in scoring, and did not win Finals MVP multiple times, or really wasn't even the consensus best player on his team, nobody would have Kobe Bryant anywhere near the top 10 all-time, much less a top 5 player.

1. Kobe Bryant went to 3 finals when he did not lead his team in scoring.
2. Kobe Bryant did not win Finals MVP 3 times in his career.
3. Kobe Bryant was clearly the 2nd guy on his team for almost half of his prime.

Do you still have Kobe in your top 10?

Yet for some inexplicable reason Tim Duncan gets a pass on all of it. Now we are supposed to believe he would be a "top 3" player in any era. Repeat that to yourself, and think about what that actually means. That's like saying he's a top 3 player all-time. These Tim Duncan fans are crazy. Where are they getting these ideas of Timmy's supposed greatness?

I agree, Kobe would never be a top 3 player in any era.

For example, from 1998 to 2000 David Robinson put up per 100 28ppg/16reb/4blk compared to Duncan's 31ppg/16/3blk. Duncan fans act as though David Robinson was completely irrelevant to the 1999 championship.

No Duncan fan would ever call Robinson irrelevant in 1999. Some may think that 1999 Robinson wasn't as good as 2000-02 Shaq, you know?

This is maybe a top 20 player all-time who gets zero credit for a team and for a franchise he actually built.

Again, in opposition to a scrub called Shaquille O'Neal that Kobe had to deal with at center position... right?

Duncan won more titles without Robinson than Kobe without Shaq, your points are absurd.

Tony Parker wins Finals MVP and Manu might be the best player team overall, and Duncan gets all the credit in 2007.

Pau Gasol might have won the FMVP in 2010, but nobody criticizes Kobe for that. Parker vs Pau is a good debate, but they were not some kind of absurdly top tier teammates every all-time great wishes to have... again, unlike peak Shaq.

In 2014, Duncan was the third or fourth best player on the team,

How did you come to that conclusion? There is no way you can put 3 players ahead of Duncan on that team.

but somehow Duncan gets all of the credit for that championship even though he was clearly coattail riding a championship roster with an all-time great system coach.

Yeah, Kobe was very unlucky playing without all-time great system coach and superior teammates...

No other player is getting into the top 5 all-time based upon Duncan's history. If Kobe Bryant, for example, scored 13ppg on a championship-level roster, then I doubt he is even ranked consensus a top 15 player.

Kobe literally won the title while scoring 15 ppg on 37 FG% in the finals... did you start watching basketball yesterday?

[70sFan]

That line doesn't put him ahead of Jokic...

No line puts you ahead of Duncan. Lines don't play basketball.

I'm assuming we all know what Duncan with that line would look like...

Top tier peak in history carrying mediocre supporting cast to the title?

[SK21209]

He'd be minimum second best player in the league and it would be a fun debate against Jokic.

[dj20001]

Alright, I will waste my time for at least some answers to this ridiculous post...

What in the world are you talking about? Duncan was 33-34 when he scored 13ppg. At worst that is the the back-end of a prime, and for a big can still be fully prime productive years. Jordan at 35 led the league in scoring at 28ppg and won MVP. Lebron James at 33-34 averaged 28ppg. Kareem around the same aged average 26ppg. People on here are saying Tim Duncan is top 5 all-time and top 3 in any era, but dude literally averaged 13ppg at the same age other top 5 all-time greats were leading the league in scoring and putting up monster numbers.

Yeah and at that age, Bill Russell averaged 12 ppg, while being the best player in the league. What does it prove?

It's amazing to me that Duncan gets so many passes for things that if any other player had their resume, then they would absolutely get killed on the all-time lists. For example, if Kobe Bryant played with four other Hall of Fame players near or in their primes for most of his career

Kobe literally played with multiple HoF players near or in their primes for most of his career.

and made the final multiple times, did not lead his team in scoring, and did not win Finals MVP multiple times, or really wasn't even the consensus best player on his team, nobody would have Kobe Bryant anywhere near the top 10 all-time, much less a top 5 player.

1. Kobe Bryant went to 3 finals when he did not lead his team in scoring.
2. Kobe Bryant did not win Finals MVP 3 times in his career.
3. Kobe Bryant was clearly the 2nd guy on his team for almost half of his prime.

Do you still have Kobe in your top 10?

Yet for some inexplicable reason Tim Duncan gets a pass on all of it. Now we are supposed to believe he would be a "top 3" player in any era. Repeat that to yourself, and think about what that actually means. That's like saying he's a top 3 player all-time. These Tim Duncan fans are crazy. Where are they getting these ideas of Timmy's supposed greatness?

I agree, Kobe would never be a top 3 player in any era.

For example, from 1998 to 2000 David Robinson put up per 100 28ppg/16reb/4blk compared to Duncan's 31ppg/16/3blk. Duncan fans act as though David Robinson was completely irrelevant to the 1999 championship.

No Duncan fan would ever call Robinson irrelevant in 1999. Some may think that 1999 Robinson wasn't as good as 2000-02 Shaq, you know?

This is maybe a top 20 player all-time who gets zero credit for a team and for a franchise he actually built.

Again, in opposition to a scrub called Shaquille O'Neal that Kobe had to deal with at center position... right?

Duncan won more titles without Robinson than Kobe without Shaq, your points are absurd.

Tony Parker wins Finals MVP and Manu might be the best player team overall, and Duncan gets all the credit in 2007.

Pau Gasol might have won the FMVP in 2010, but nobody criticizes Kobe for that. Parker vs Pau is a good debate, but they were not some kind of absurdly top tier teammates every all-time great wishes to have... again, unlike peak Shaq.

In 2014, Duncan was the third or fourth best player on the team,

How did you come to that conclusion? There is no way you can put 3 players ahead of Duncan on that team.

but somehow Duncan gets all of the credit for that championship even though he was clearly coattail riding a championship roster with an all-time great system coach.

Yeah, Kobe was very unlucky playing without all-time great system coach and superior teammates...

No other player is getting into the top 5 all-time based upon Duncan's history. If Kobe Bryant, for example, scored 13ppg on a championship-level roster, then I doubt he is even ranked consensus a top 15 player.

Kobe literally won the title while scoring 15 ppg on 37 FG% in the finals... did you start watching basketball yesterday?

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

[dhsilv2]

No line puts you ahead of Duncan. Lines don't play basketball.

I'm assuming we all know what Duncan with that line would look like...

Top tier peak in history carrying mediocre supporting cast to the title?

It was certainly a title with a less than stellar cast. It was also not a top year in terms of NBA talent.

[dj20001]

Just mind blowing there are still those claiming Kobe was a better player than Duncan.

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.

[dj20001]

I didn't say it was foundational to his identity, just that him winning MVP also coincided with higher scoring averages. I'm sure he could have won MVP with stats from his "lesser" seasons, but to your point his teammates were so good he didn't have to.

Sure, but that wasn't really the point of my remark, so remarks about his scoring aren't really salient here.

ballzboyee was crapping on Duncan because he didn't know what he was talking about as far as Duncan's 2011 season and the whys of things, so I was highlighting what was going on in San Antonio at the time. Yeah, you wouldn't look at Duncan (deployed as he was) as the best player in the league if he were playing 28 mpg and producing like that. That is, however, very different from understanding of what he was capable at that same point in his career. It's just that Pops had a different view of how to use him and Tim was amenable to adapting his game around Manu and Parker.

In his MVP seasons, he was scoring at a level higher than he did in basically any other season of his career, and that strongly contributed to the impact which led to those awards, no doubt.

You said something to the affect of volume scoring being overvalued or overblown. Which is fine. I'm just saying at the same token, Duncan's MVP seasons align more with something you feel is overvalued or overblown.

I don't think Duncan was capable of going much past 28 mins per night at that stage in his career tbh. They played the long game and it worked because the Spurs had parts around TD - HOF parts apparently. Most players aren't given the same opportunity to age as gracefully.

[tsherkin]

You said something to the affect of volume scoring being overvalued or overblown.

It is. For as long as the NBA has existed, people have equated scoring volume to direct value on winning, and it's troublesome when dealing with more defensive-oriented superstars. Duncan scored enough for his team as required, but his impact extended well beyond supporting minimum scoring necessities. Of course, on the level of the broader thread, we ARE speaking of 03 Duncan, but I was specifically responding to a comment about 2011 Duncan at the time.

Which is fine. I'm just saying at the same token, Duncan's MVP seasons align more with something you feel is overvalued or overblown.

Not really. Duncan wasn't a hyper-volume scorer at any point in his career. At that stage, he was "merely" more of a classic first option. And he was a 23 ppg scorer at the time, taking 17 FGA/g. This isn't the sort of stuff I was talking about at all.

I don't think Duncan was capable of going much past 28 mins per night at that stage in his career tbh.

I'm inclined to disagree. I think that had they asked to try and rock 25 a night while playing 38 mpg, he might not have lasted much longer, but that's a separate story.

[CobraCommander]

All four of those guys you mentioned have been in commercials though.

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

Watch on YouTube

Bad? Those commercials are all time greats!

They play on the fact that they have no personality lol