How many games would the 99 Spurs win without Duncan?

[tsherkin]

Sub-30.

Sounds right, but even 20 might be generous tbh.

It's possible.

[One_and_Done]

Sub-30.

Sounds right, but even 20 might be generous tbh.

It's possible.

I'd say probable.

[tsherkin]

Sounds right, but even 20 might be generous tbh.

It's possible.

I'd say probable.

Bit of a bump, that, lol.

[cupcakesnake]

Start with that 1996 team that won 59 games and then subtract:
- David Robinson no longer being an MVP-level guy. This is the year he stops being star level on offense. He probably can still handle some volume scoring, but it's going to be uglier and less efficient. The defense stays very good, but even there health is chipping away a bit.
- Sean Elliot's health. A slasher that could no longer slash and become a bit of a long-2 specialist.
- Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, Mario Elie, and Will Perdue all being past their primes.

Probably would have gotten ugly this year. A shiny new young star that could anchor offense and defense allowed all these vets to slide into smaller roles. That all being said, I look at the last year of Boston (36-year-old KG, injured Rondo) that managed to be a .500 team and make the playoffs. I could see San Antonio buckling down on defense and getting by in a sad but just-effective-enough kind of way.

Looking at the West that year: Blazers, Lakers, and the creaky Rockets and Jazz all look clearly better. I'd lump the Spurs in with the Suns, T-Wolves, Kings, and Sonics. Fighting to stay .500 and make the playoffs. The Spurs would be bad, but the West that year was between eras and no one was very good. You can't convince me they'd be at the level of the John Starks/Erik Dampier Warriors, or injured Steve Nash/rookie Dirk Mavericks.

[iggymcfrack]

I think they still win more than 40 games and are around a .500 team.
Nothing too impressive but still a playoff team.
They weren't great for sure but it was a different time too. The game overall was uglier. People couldn't shoot like today. It was a defensive league.

I dunno man. They look so bad without Duncan in these games. D.Rob had degraded quite alot, even factoring in the league differences.

In 1999, Robinson had his best postseason BPM since 1991 and it was better than Duncan’s. He had foul trouble in the Lakers’ series as you repeatedly mention, but here are their numbers per 100 possessions throughout the playoffs:

Duncan: 30/15/4/1/4
Robinson: 25/16/4/3/4

Duncan and Robinson were very close to being equals in the ‘99 season, much more so than Shaq and Kobe to Steph and KD ever were.

[Tim Lehrbach]

But, just to partake in this.
Utah Jazz (back to back defending WCF champs, ran into the Bulls) probably wins the NBA title that season (Jazz owned the Spurs during the '90s, playoffs and regular season). Gets the 1 seed in the West, instead of 2nd seed. Returns back to the NBA Finals, 3rd times a charm. Beats NYKs in the NBA Finals.

Utah lost 4-2 with home court advantage, not to San Antonio, but to Portland. Do you assume that they dodge the Blazers in this scenario, or that the series in this alternate reality ends differently?

[One_and_Done]

I think they still win more than 40 games and are around a .500 team.
Nothing too impressive but still a playoff team.
They weren't great for sure but it was a different time too. The game overall was uglier. People couldn't shoot like today. It was a defensive league.

I dunno man. They look so bad without Duncan in these games. D.Rob had degraded quite alot, even factoring in the league differences.

In 1999, Robinson had his best postseason BPM since 1991 and it was better than Duncan’s. He had foul trouble in the Lakers’ series as you repeatedly mention, but here are their numbers per 100 possessions throughout the playoffs:

Duncan: 30/15/4/1/4
Robinson: 25/16/4/3/4

Duncan and Robinson were very close to being equals in the ‘99 season, much more so than Shaq and Kobe to Steph and KD ever were.

I mean, I literally broke down a chunk of a game to show how far they were from equal. Per 100 stats are useful for comparing across seasons. They are not useful when it's comparing 2 guys on the same team and the reason one of them has worse stats is because he can't stay on the court.

D.Rob had 13ppg and 6.5rpg in 28mpg vs the Lakers. Duncan had 29-11-3 while playing 44mpg, and was more efficient. If a stat thinks D.Rob was as valuable as Duncan in that series, then the stat is wrong and should be called out as such. I keep hearing how D.Rob fouled out because he had to guard Shaq, but in 02 when D.Rob was hurt, Duncan guarded Shaq and still played 44.7mpg. Duncan was better by far at everything compared to D.Rob in 99. Especially because Duncan is playing 50% more minutes.

[iggymcfrack]

I dunno man. They look so bad without Duncan in these games. D.Rob had degraded quite alot, even factoring in the league differences.

In 1999, Robinson had his best postseason BPM since 1991 and it was better than Duncan’s. He had foul trouble in the Lakers’ series as you repeatedly mention, but here are their numbers per 100 possessions throughout the playoffs:

Duncan: 30/15/4/1/4
Robinson: 25/16/4/3/4

Duncan and Robinson were very close to being equals in the ‘99 season, much more so than Shaq and Kobe to Steph and KD ever were.

I mean, I literally broke down a chunk of a game to show how far they were from equal. Per 100 stats are useful for comparing across seasons. They are not useful when it's comparing 2 guys on the same team and the reason one of them has worse stats is because he can't stay on the court.

D.Rob had 13ppg and 6.5rpg in 28mpg vs the Lakers. Duncan had 29-11-3 while playing 44mpg, and was more efficient. If a stat thinks D.Rob was as valuable as Duncan in that series, then the stat is wrong and should be called out as such. I keep hearing how D.Rob fouled out because he had to guard Shaq, but in 02 when D.Rob was hurt, Duncan guarded Shaq and still played 44.7mpg. Duncan was better by far at everything compared to D.Rob in 99. Especially because Duncan is playing 50% more minutes.

OMG, shut up about the Lakers series already. It was a 4 game sweep and Robinson was in foul trouble all 4 games. No one’s saying that Robinson was as valuable as Duncan during a 4 game stretch where he had to sit a lot due to foul trouble while guarding Shaq. You even suggesting that is an absurd straw man. How about the rest of the season?

You can’t just counter every argument anyone makes about the season as a whole by just saying “but these 4 games! But these 4 games!” It’s like if you were arguing that Duncan was the most valuable Spur during the Western Conference playoffs and I was like “well that’s ridiculous, he only had 5/8/1 on .317 TS% in Game 3 of the Western conference finals and Jaren Jackson had 19/5/1 on .658 TS%” and then when you posted stats for the playoffs as a whole I said “if a stat thinks Duncan was as valuable as Jaren Jackson in that game, then stat is wrong and should be called out as such”. You’re starting to come off intellectually dishonest in this conversation.

Although you apparently went even further than that as you broke down “a chunk of a game” and that’s supposed to mean something somehow, LOL.

[One_and_Done]

In 1999, Robinson had his best postseason BPM since 1991 and it was better than Duncan’s. He had foul trouble in the Lakers’ series as you repeatedly mention, but here are their numbers per 100 possessions throughout the playoffs:

Duncan: 30/15/4/1/4
Robinson: 25/16/4/3/4

Duncan and Robinson were very close to being equals in the ‘99 season, much more so than Shaq and Kobe to Steph and KD ever were.

I mean, I literally broke down a chunk of a game to show how far they were from equal. Per 100 stats are useful for comparing across seasons. They are not useful when it's comparing 2 guys on the same team and the reason one of them has worse stats is because he can't stay on the court.

D.Rob had 13ppg and 6.5rpg in 28mpg vs the Lakers. Duncan had 29-11-3 while playing 44mpg, and was more efficient. If a stat thinks D.Rob was as valuable as Duncan in that series, then the stat is wrong and should be called out as such. I keep hearing how D.Rob fouled out because he had to guard Shaq, but in 02 when D.Rob was hurt, Duncan guarded Shaq and still played 44.7mpg. Duncan was better by far at everything compared to D.Rob in 99. Especially because Duncan is playing 50% more minutes.

OMG, shut up about the Lakers series already. It was a 4 game sweep and Robinson was in foul trouble all 4 games. No one’s saying that Robinson was as valuable as Duncan during a 4 game stretch where he had to sit a lot due to foul trouble while guarding Shaq. You even suggesting that is an absurd straw man. How about the rest of the season?

You can’t just counter every argument anyone makes about the season as a whole by just saying “but these 4 games! But these 4 games!” It’s like if you were arguing that Duncan was the most valuable Spur during the Western Conference playoffs and I was like “well that’s ridiculous, he only had 5/8/1 on .317 TS% in Game 3 of the Western conference finals and Jaren Jackson had 19/5/1 on .658 TS%” and then when you posted stats for the playoffs as a whole I said “if a stat thinks Duncan was as valuable as Jaren Jackson in that game, then stat is wrong and should be called out as such”. You’re starting to come off intellectually dishonest in this conversation.

Although you apparently went even further than that as you broke down “a chunk of a game” and that’s supposed to mean something somehow, LOL.

But it was clear all season, and all playoffs, that Duncan was much more valuable. The only way you don't think that is if your criteria is to focus only on certain advanced stats.

I mean, the offense was clearly built around Duncan. That's something evident in both the game tape, the stats, and from everyone involved saying a as much... and they did that because Duncan was a much better offensive player. After D.Rob fell off, and retired, the Dtrg stayed strong (or even improved) even as D.Rob's minutes went to weak defensive players like Rasho, so it's clear Duncan was the one anchoring the defence too. The regular stats all say Duncan was much better. Duncan was an MVP candidate in 99, and in hindsight clearly should have won, whereas D.Rob didn't even make an all-nba team (at the weakest position in the league).

You also seem to not get that Duncan playing so many more minutes is another reason he's so much more valuable. You can't be 'a co-star' when one guy is getting 39.3mpg in the RS to your 31.7mpg, and 43.1mpg in the PS to your 35.3mpg, and is beating you in every category (points, rebounds, assists, blocks, efficiency, etc). You call the Lakers series an anomaly, but Duncan was outperforming D.Rob by a large margin all season.

[jkvonny]

But, just to partake in this.
Utah Jazz (back to back defending WCF champs, ran into the Bulls) probably wins the NBA title that season (Jazz owned the Spurs during the '90s, playoffs and regular season). Gets the 1 seed in the West, instead of 2nd seed. Returns back to the NBA Finals, 3rd times a charm. Beats NYKs in the NBA Finals.

Utah lost 4-2 with home court advantage, not to San Antonio, but to Portland. Do you assume that they dodge the Blazers in this scenario, or that the series in this alternate reality ends differently?

I remember, yes had Portland not upset Utah.