Would Tim Duncan regularly shoot 3s in today's NBA?

[z0sa]

If we could transplant Tim Duncan (let's say from 2003) to today's NBA, for any team -- would Timmy regularly shoot 3s (as in at least 1 every game)?

If so, how many do you think the Big Fundamental would be jackin' up?

A couple relevant stats:

21's average 3PM/A per game: 0.0/0.1
Career 3PT%: .179

I say yes! he'd expand his range out to the three point line - though it probably wouldn't be more than 1 attempt per game. He'd be cooking so often on the inside in today's game, he likely wouldn't need to shoot from outside much.

[spurraider21]

eh, probably not. from 16ft - 3pt line, he shot about 41% for his career, and only took about 14.5% of his career FGA from that range

the kind of guy that would have been a more regular 3pt shooter is a guy like aldridge who lived in that farther range anyway. LMA took about 30% of his career FGA from outside 16 feet and was making 43% of his shots from 16ft thru the 3pt line

or perhaps more notably, KG. if KG and Duncan played in this era, i think KG almost certainly goes down as the better player. KG took over 31% of his FGA from outside 16ft and made over 45% of his shots from 16ft-3pt line. despite how much further from the paint KG played, he only shot 1% less from the field than Duncan did. the added value of the 3pt shot would have boosted his efficiency, on top of the already notable FT disparity. KG also the much more mobile defender, better handler, passer, etc.

[DAF86]

Jokic last season averaged 2.2 3pts attempts per game. I think it's safe to say Duncan would average between 1 and 2.

[DAF86]

eh, probably not. from 16ft - 3pt line, he shot about 41% for his career, and only took about 14.5% of his career FGA from that range

the kind of guy that would have been a more regular 3pt shooter is a guy like aldridge who lived in that farther range anyway. LMA took about 30% of his career FGA from outside 16 feet and was making 43% of his shots from 16ft thru the 3pt line

or perhaps more notably, KG. if KG and Duncan played in this era, i think KG almost certainly goes down as the better player. KG took over 31% of his FGA from outside 16ft and made over 45% of his shots from 16ft-3pt line. despite how much further from the paint KG played, he only shot 1% less from the field than Duncan did. the added value of the 3pt shot would have boosted his efficiency, on top of the already notable FT disparity. KG also the much more mobile defender, better handler, passer, etc.

Duncan would have worked (and therefore improved) a lot more in all those areas. Don't underestimate greatness, tbh.

[spurraider21]

Duncan would have worked (and therefore improved) a lot more in all those areas. Don't underestimate greatness, tbh.

duncan was obviously a monster. you dont have to convince anybody in this forum of that.

but you'd basically need a transformation of his game, whereas KG would really just have to slightly expand the edges of his game in a pretty projectable way.

im not saying he'd be a bum in this era. he'd be confined to the center position, though, and i dont expect him to magically become a great shooter when he was never good at long 2's or free throws outside of a year or two here and there

[DAF86]

duncan was obviously a monster. you dont have to convince anybody in this forum of that.

but you'd basically need a transformation of his game, whereas KG would really just have to slightly expand the edges of his game in a pretty projectable way.

im not saying he'd be a bum in this era. he'd be confined to the center position, though, and i dont expect him to magically become a great shooter when he was never good at long 2's or free throws outside of a year or two here and there

I do think his outside shooting would imrpove significantly with more long range reps, but it's not even about that. I don't expect Duncan to start jacking them up like Curry, but he would at least keep defenses honest and then he would dominate inside as always.

At the end of the day what separates the elite from the GOATs is what's upstairs and the compe ive gene. I have no doubt in my mind Duncan would make it work in today's NBA one way or another and he would still be a better player than a Kevin Garnett.

[DAF86]

An example of the era influencing 3pt shooting I think could be seen in Lebron. This season he's averaging 40% on 5 threes per game. I think it would be safe to say if Lebron played in the 90's he would have never averaged anywhere close to that on a season. He probably wouldn't even have worked on his 3pt shooting and he would have seen as a complete non-shooter, instead of a decent 35% career shooter.

[spurraider21]

An example of the era influencing 3pt shooting I think could be seen in Lebron. This season he's averaging 40% on 5 threes per game. I think it would be safe to say if Lebron played in the 90's he would have never averaged anywhere close to that on a season. He probably wouldn't even have worked on his 3pt shooting and he would have seen as a complete non-shooter, instead of a decent 35% career shooter.

sure but duncan's midrange shooting %'s didnt really go up as his career went along

his FT shooting was generally better in the 2nd half of his career, but the efficiency on his jumper was always pretty stagnant. had some random e years here and there like in 11-12 but generally speaking wasnt really trending upwards

OTOH lebron's shooting has gotten progressively better

bosh and aldridge began shooting 3's in the tail ends of their careers, etc

[spurraider21]

At the end of the day what separates the elite from the GOATs is what's upstairs and the compe ive gene. I have no doubt in my mind Duncan would make it work in today's NBA one way or another and he would still be a better player than a Kevin Garnett.

i dont think this makes for realistic conversation though. like, oh, if duncan wanted, he could have been jokic. or maybe he could have decided he wants to be porzingis. etc.

i think in these "how would player X have looked in Y era" you have to basically take the framework of player X's game and made a reasonable assessment of how much they could realistically have tweaked to adjust. if you just say "well he could have played literally any way because he was so compe ive" then its not even an interesting discussion

duncan would have been just fine in today's NBA and still have been an MVP candidate type player who could win rings. not that different from current anthony davis who doesnt exactly thrive from outside anyway, but with much more mental for ude, consistency, leadership, etc.

i just think KG was built for the modern era more than timmy. timmy got to be the biggest and baddest PF in a 2-big era without great center play outside of shaq and briefly yao

[DAF86]

i dont think this makes for realistic conversation though. like, oh, if duncan wanted, he could have been jokic. or maybe he could have decided he wants to be porzingis. etc.

i think in these "how would player X have looked in Y era" you have to basically take the framework of player X's game and made a reasonable assessment of how much they could realistically have tweaked to adjust. if you just say "well he could have played literally any way because he was so compe ive" then its not even an interesting discussion

duncan would have been just fine in today's NBA and still have been an MVP candidate type player who could win rings. not that different from current anthony davis who doesnt exactly thrive from outside anyway, but with much more mental for ude, consistency, leadership, etc.

i just think KG was built for the modern era more than timmy. timmy got to be the biggest and baddest PF in a 2-big era without great center play outside of shaq and briefly yao

I never said if Duncan wanted he could have played like Jokic. I tried to explain that I think Duncan would have found his own way of dominating and be just as impactful as he was in the early/mid 2000s.

Your Davis comparisson I think it's pretty good. You don't think an Anthony Davis with more consistency, mental fortutide, leadership and health would have been better than Garnett?

[spurraider21]

I never said if Duncan wanted he could have played like Jokic. I tried to explain that I think Duncan would have found his own way of dominating and be just as impactful as he was in the early/mid 2000s.

Your Davis comparisson I think it's pretty good. You don't think an Anthony Davis with more consistency, mental fortutide, leadership and health would have been better than Garnett?

garnett's shooting and playmaking would have made him better in today's game imo.

both garnett and davis are better perimeter defenders than duncan was, especially garnett. that matters way more in today's game than it did in duncans time, where teams regularly played 2 bigs and even stretch 4's were rare, let alone stretch 5's

[DAF86]

garnett's shooting and playmaking would have made him better in today's game imo.

both garnett and davis are better perimeter defenders than duncan was, especially garnett. that matters way more in today's game than it did in duncans time, where teams regularly played 2 bigs and even stretch 4's were rare, let alone stretch 5's

I don't know how much perimeter defense from centers really matters in today's NBA. Just look at Jokic and Embiid, arguably the 2 best players in today's NBA and their perimeter defense is nothing to write home about.

[baseline bum]

i dont think this makes for realistic conversation though. like, oh, if duncan wanted, he could have been jokic. or maybe he could have decided he wants to be porzingis. etc.

i think in these "how would player X have looked in Y era" you have to basically take the framework of player X's game and made a reasonable assessment of how much they could realistically have tweaked to adjust. if you just say "well he could have played literally any way because he was so compe ive" then its not even an interesting discussion

duncan would have been just fine in today's NBA and still have been an MVP candidate type player who could win rings. not that different from current anthony davis who doesnt exactly thrive from outside anyway, but with much more mental for ude, consistency, leadership, etc.

i just think KG was built for the modern era more than timmy. timmy got to be the biggest and baddest PF in a 2-big era without great center play outside of shaq and briefly yao

To me the bigger what if is David in this era. Like he'd be Giannis+ in this era where bigs run the floor instead of setting up on the block every possession.

[spurraider21]

To me the bigger what if is David in this era. Like he'd be Giannis+ in this era where bigs run the floor instead of setting up on the block every possession.

oh david would be an animal in today's game. his game translates to today's game better than duncan's

[RC_Drunkford]

To me the bigger what if is David in this era. Like he'd be Giannis+ in this era where bigs run the floor instead of setting up on the block every possession.

he'd be the MVP in this era

[DAF86]

Speaking of hypotheticals: Manu in today's NBA becomes a top 20 player of all-time, maybe even higher.

[Arcadian]

eh, probably not. from 16ft - 3pt line, he shot about 41% for his career, and only took about 14.5% of his career FGA from that range

the kind of guy that would have been a more regular 3pt shooter is a guy like aldridge who lived in that farther range anyway. LMA took about 30% of his career FGA from outside 16 feet and was making 43% of his shots from 16ft thru the 3pt line

or perhaps more notably, KG. if KG and Duncan played in this era, i think KG almost certainly goes down as the better player. KG took over 31% of his FGA from outside 16ft and made over 45% of his shots from 16ft-3pt line. despite how much further from the paint KG played, he only shot 1% less from the field than Duncan did. the added value of the 3pt shot would have boosted his efficiency, on top of the already notable FT disparity. KG also the much more mobile defender, better handler, passer, etc.

I think the main thing that separates Tim from Garnett is the clutch factor. He made bigger plays at bigger moments, and he always played bigger in the playoffs. That would be true regardless of era.

*Also his physical strength. Tim would just bully people in the post. He was the second strongest player of his era after Shaq. Everybody said he had remarkable lower body strength in particular.

[spurraider21]

Speaking of hypotheticals: Manu in today's NBA becomes a top 20 player of all-time, maybe even higher.

depends how many minutes he can handle, but yeah he was the prototype for today's game

[spurraider21]

I think the main thing that separates Tim from Garnett is the clutch factor. He made bigger plays at bigger moments, and he always played bigger in the playoffs. That would be true regardless of era.

*Also his physical strength. Tim would just bully people in the post. He was the second strongest player of his era after Shaq. Everybody said he had remarkable lower body strength in particular.

i mentioned each of these in my earlier post. timmy had the better mental for ude imo. KG would let emotions get the best of him and he shrunk at times as a result. and i specifically mentioned timmy being the biggest and baddest PF in an era where there were no good big strong centers aside shaq and briefly yao.

im not saying he wouldnt do well in today's NBA. im just saying KG was basically built for it. his switchability on defense, outside shooting, superior passing. other than dirk, im not sure there is another big from that era who was a better shooter than KG (not talking about specialists, talking about the good/great players). he was a better shooter than pau, and aldridge, for instance

[Roscoe P. Coltrane]

No but Robinson would.

[Arcadian]

i mentioned each of these in my earlier post. timmy had the better mental for ude imo. KG would let emotions get the best of him and he shrunk at times as a result. and i specifically mentioned timmy being the biggest and baddest PF in an era where there were no good big strong centers aside shaq and briefly yao.

im not saying he wouldnt do well in today's NBA. im just saying KG was basically built for it. his switchability on defense, outside shooting, superior passing. other than dirk, im not sure there is another big from that era who was a better shooter than KG (not talking about specialists, talking about the good/great players). he was a better shooter than pau, and aldridge, for instance

It's also hard to generalize about Duncan as a monolith because his game evolved throughout his career to adapt to his physical cir stances. Like if we think about 1997-2000 Duncan pre-meniscus tear, he was super athletic and more mobile. Then his mid-2000s peak form was at his most skilled and physically strongest/heaviest. Then his "third act" involved lightening up a bit and adding more midrange jumpers to reduce the constant wear and tear with age, but also playing smarter and relying more on his IQ. Which form would do better today?

[spurraider21]

It's also hard to generalize about Duncan as a monolith because his game evolved throughout his career to adapt to his physical cir stances. Like if we think about 1997-2000 Duncan pre-meniscus tear, he was super athletic and more mobile. Then his mid-2000s peak form was at his most skilled and physically strongest/heaviest. Then his "third act" involved lightening up a bit and adding more midrange jumpers to reduce the constant wear and tear with age, but also playing smarter and relying more on his IQ. Which form would do better today?

He added more jumpers late but they weren’t any more efficient

even first phase athletic Duncan wasn’t as mobile as garnett

[Arcadian]

He added more jumpers late but they weren’t any more efficient

even first phase athletic Duncan wasn’t as mobile as garnett

To be fair, Tim and KG were coming from opposite trajectories - Tim was a college C who switched to PF in his early NBA career, while Kevin actually started his career at SF for 2 seasons according to bballreference. And at that time, the paradigm was to have a dominant big man who could contend with Shaq. But man, young Tim had some real quickness and explosiveness. I think he would be a monster in today's game.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The OP's question does not make sense to me. Duncan retired in 2016 when the Warriors were starting their run. They were contemporaries of Pringles and the Suns and the Spurs increased their 3PT FGA significantly during that time period as well.

IOW, if he could've managed a decent percentage, he would have shot it more back in his playing career.

[spurraider21]

To be fair, Tim and KG were coming from opposite trajectories - Tim was a college C who switched to PF in his early NBA career, while Kevin actually started his career at SF for 2 seasons according to bballreference. And at that time, the paradigm was to have a dominant big man who could contend with Shaq. But man, young Tim had some real quickness and explosiveness. I think he would be a monster in today's game.

theres no need for these hypothetical excuses just to stan timmy. duncan > kg and i dont deny that

all im addressing is whose game between the two better translates to the modern era, or who had a clearer path to make slight modifications to their game to even better thrive in today's game. imo, its clearly KG