Where would Peak Tim Duncan rank today?

[Matt15]

Where would Peak Duncan rank in today’s league??

[70sFan]

Very, very high. Him vs Jokic would be a nice debate.

[AussieBuck]

Would be super fun to have him the game today against Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, AD and the young guys. Top 3 is the safe bet.

[MiamiBulls]

Duncan's Offensive game was very much of the Dead Ball Era, he would be a role player on Offense in today's NBA. Teams don't run their Offense out of the low post anymore & he isn't anywhere close to the scorer/FT shooter Embiid is. Duncan would be a better version of Gobert, so likely a Top 8 player.

[70sFan]

Duncan's Offensive game was very much of the Dead Ball Era, he would be a role player on Offense in today's NBA. Teams don't run their Offense out of the low post anymore & he isn't anywhere close to the scorer/FT shooter Embiid is. Duncan would be a better version of Gobert, so likely a Top 8 player.

Thankfully we know that Duncan provided significantly more than low post scoring at his peak.

[pipfan]

In his time, #1 player (moving today's players to 2003)
In today's offensive-centered era, #2 behind Jokic

[JRoy]

He’d be the best defensive anchor in the league.

[tsherkin]

Very, very high. Him vs Jokic would be a nice debate.

Would it?

Duncan wouldn't get anywhere near Jokic as an offensive player and without dramatic changes in how he played the game, I don't really think his defensive impact would be quite as good in today's game as then. Duncan was quite well-suited to his own time, wherefore his dominance, but like with many guys, I don't know that he'd translate forward after time spent adapting to the style that made him that good and such.

He was a little rough at the line, didn't have a lot of range, wasn't super mobile by today's standards. His relative scoring efficiency dive-bombed after about 03 and he would not do well at all against small guards in those high switches which are so common today, that was very much a weakness for him.

[Cavsfansince84]

Very, very high. Him vs Jokic would be a nice debate.

Would it?

Duncan wouldn't get anywhere near Jokic as an offensive player and without dramatic changes in how he played the game, I don't really think his defensive impact would be quite as good in today's game as then. Duncan was quite well-suited to his own time, wherefore his dominance, but like with many guys, I don't know that he'd translate forward after time spent adapting to the style that made him that good and such.

He was a little rough at the line, didn't have a lot of range, wasn't super mobile by today's standards. His relative scoring efficiency dive-bombed after about 03 and he would not do well at all against small guards in those high switches which are so common today, that was very much a weakness for him.

Ya, I don't think he'd be considered top 3 today and I think that's ok. I don't think there's anything wrong with admitting that many if not most players are going to be more dominant in their own era than ones which come 20-50 years later. Unless you wanna go along the whole 'if he's born 20-25 years ago' route then do a mostly hypothetical scenario of how you think he'd play now.

[70sFan]

Very, very high. Him vs Jokic would be a nice debate.

Would it?

Duncan wouldn't get anywhere near Jokic as an offensive player and without dramatic changes in how he played the game, I don't really think his defensive impact would be quite as good in today's game as then. Duncan was quite well-suited to his own time, wherefore his dominance, but like with many guys, I don't know that he'd translate forward after time spent adapting to the style that made him that good and such.

He was a little rough at the line, didn't have a lot of range, wasn't super mobile by today's standards. His relative scoring efficiency dive-bombed after about 03 and he would not do well at all against small guards in those high switches which are so common today, that was very much a weakness for him.

Yeah, I disagree with most of what you said. We can't prove anything in this discussion though, so let's leave with that.

[tsherkin]

Yeah, I disagree with most of what you said. We can't prove anything in this discussion though, so let's leave with that.

Career 69.6% FT shooter. Nothing to disagree with there.

Below average from 16-23 feet in 8 of 19 seasons. < +1% in two more. VERY inconsistent from year to year. Stronger in his first two seasons due to low usage.

His relative efficiency dropped off considerably after 03, that isn't a debatable point either.

110, 106, 106, 104, 111, 109 through 03. Then he was at 105+ twice for the rest of his career and averaged 101.5 over those subsequent 13 seasons, so again, not really a contestable issue. He didn't become horrifically INEFFICIENT, for sure, but he was considerably less efficient as a scorer relative to league average as the league evolved. SOME of that, of course, is due to longevity. His draw rate tailed off pretty sharply after about 07, which also coincides with him getting to the rim less and shooting more from the perimeter as he became more of a strategic decoy than a primary focus on O as his volume dropped.

He wasn't super mobile by today's standards. He had nothing like the mobility we see from lots of guys. He wouldn't be unathletic today either, of course, but he was never a guy who dominated with lateral quicks. He was a smart guy with fluid athleticism who positioned himself and anticipated well. Quite well-coordinated, which is very valuable and was a major part of his longevity. As I said in my original remarks, he'd still do well, but there's more to the game now than in his day and mobility is a big part of that.

So basically, you can contest his efficacy in high switches, but primarily, everything I said is grounded in fact. Perhaps you were inferring more negativity than I was attempting to convey? I very much believe Duncan would be quite good today, just nothing like Jokic's level.

[70sFan]

Career 69.6% FT shooter. Nothing to disagree with there.

We're talking about peaks here and Duncan was above 70% in his peak seasons. It's not an amazing percentage, but being around 75% for two straight seasons is not bad at all.

Below average from 16-23 feet in 8 of 19 seasons. < +1% in two more. VERY inconsistent from year to year. Stronger in his first two seasons due to low usage.

Again, we're talking about peaks here. Long range shooting wasn't his strength though, we can agree here.

His relative efficiency dropped off considerably after 03, that isn't a debatable point either.

110, 106, 106, 104, 111, 109 through 03. Then he was at 105+ twice for the rest of his career and averaged 101.5 over those subsequent 13 seasons, so again, not really a contestable issue. He didn't become horrifically INEFFICIENT, for sure, but he was considerably less efficient as a scorer relative to league average as the league evolved. SOME of that, of course, is due to longevity. His draw rate tailed off pretty sharply after about 07, which also coincides with him getting to the rim less and shooting more from the perimeter as he became more of a strategic decoy than a primary focus on O as his volume dropped.

None of that is related to peak discussion though.

He wasn't super mobile by today's standards. He had nothing like the mobility we see from lots of guys. He wouldn't be unathletic today either, of course, but he was never a guy who dominated with lateral quicks. He was a smart guy with fluid athleticism who positioned himself and anticipated well. Quite well-coordinated, which is very valuable and was a major part of his longevity.

I'd argue that he's significantly more mobile than two of the best centers in the league right now and the best defender in the league as well.

I very much believe Duncan would be quite good today, just nothing like Jokic's level.

Do you think the same remains true for the early 2000s?

[tsherkin]

Again, we're talking about peaks here. Long range shooting wasn't his strength though, we can agree here.

You are correct, if we confine ourselves to peak, he does have two solid FT shooting seasons. And I wasn't really paying attention to that when I made my original post, which was my bad.

He was pretty inconsistent over his career, but it's a fair point. And yes, long-range shooting wasn't his strength. I don't have a lot of faith that he'd make a particularly useful 3pt shooter, either.

None of that is related to peak discussion though.

Sure is, though. His relative efficiency in those eras was rooted in the lower league-average TS% of the time. He has three seasons in his entire career where he'd be just under league average today, and he didn't do anything which would really push his efficiency in today's game. And he'd be used less than his role dictated in his own time, more than likely.

I'd argue that he's significantly more mobile than two of the best centers in the league right now and the best defender in the league as well.

I doubt he'd be the best defender in the league. An impact defender, sure, but not the best. And I don't think he's considerably more mobile than anyone at the top of the 5 game. Athleticism wasn't his bag, unless you're lumping power/base strength in there. Mobility, perhaps the better word. He wasn't a stiff guy, but he also wasn't a guy you wanted switched out on guys with handles and a shot, either.

Do you think the same remains true for the early 2000s?

I think I don't understand the question. I watched him play in the early 2000s. He was never anything like Jokic's level on offense at any point in his career, nor even remotely close. His overall impact is a different conversation, of course, because he authored considerable (and underrated in his own day) defensive impact, of course, but that wouldn't be quite the same today, not with shot distribution and play type differences, etc.

[Ben AN]

If you're comparing how good he was in his own era to how good guys are in this one, top 4. If we're to guesstimate how the 14 seconds rule, small ball/5 out lineups, and lesser minutes would affect his game, top 6.

[70sFan]

I think I don't understand the question. I watched him play in the early 2000s. He was never anything like Jokic's level on offense at any point in his career, nor even remotely close. His overall impact is a different conversation, of course, because he authored considerable (and underrated in his own day) defensive impact, of course, but that wouldn't be quite the same today, not with shot distribution and play type differences, etc.

I am asking if you think Jokic would be clearly better than Duncan in the early 2000s as well - not offensively, but overall.

By the way, who would you have ahead of peak Duncan on defense now?

[One_and_Done]

#1, not even close.

[tsherkin]

I am asking if you think Jokic would be clearly better than Duncan in the early 2000s as well - not offensively, but overall.

Ah, that makes sense.

Yes, I think Jokic would be clearly better than Duncan at the time as well.

By the way, who would you have ahead of peak Duncan on defense now?

In the absolute sense, or based on how I think Duncan would be somewhat diminished in today's game?

[70sFan]

I am asking if you think Jokic would be clearly better than Duncan in the early 2000s as well - not offensively, but overall.

Ah, that makes sense.

Yes, I think Jokic would be clearly better than Duncan at the time as well.

By the way, who would you have ahead of peak Duncan on defense now?

In the absolute sense, or based on how I think Duncan would be somewhat diminished in today's game?

1. Where do you rank Duncan and Jokic all-time in terms of peaks?
2. You can do both.

[The-Power]

Tough to speculate how players from previous eras would translate to the current NBA. It's just a very different approach today. If we give Duncan the benefit of the doubt that he could adapt reasonably well, I'd say #2 at best behind Jokic. He has an argument over anyone else although a couple players also have an argument over him. If we just assumed Duncan continues to play as he did in his era – well, that changes things and I wouldn't feel comfortable ranking him but it would be clearly lower.

I voted top 3 here but could see him being ranked a bit lower as well (even assuming reasonable translation to today's game). If we're just looking at the impact peak Duncan had relative to the league and compare it to the relative-to-league impact of today's players, ranking Duncan in the top 3 would seem pretty obvious, though. Not sure there are currently more than one or two players ahead of him in terms of in-era impact.

[Heej]

I don't think Duncan could execute a switching, hedging, showing, or trapping scheme vs modern ballhandlers but surely he can play high drop or even up to the level of the screen (catch hedge or "up to touch" are the 2 labels I've heard it called) like many premiere big men do vs dynamic pnr ballhandlers

So much of defense is the extra stuff anyway. Communicating and not messing up the scheme. And he'd probably be the best big man defender in the league which is enormously valuable right now