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 competitive 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 spike 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 competitive 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 competitive" 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 fortitude, 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 competitive" 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 fortitude, 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 competitive" 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 fortitude, 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 fortitude 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 fortitude 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 circumstances. 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 circumstances. 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

[JPB]

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

You're probably right.

[scott]

Off topic, but this is the most relevant thread on the front page, so I'm going with it:

1762589692174680100

[spurraider21]

this is the value of a meme league like the XFL to try out new concepts

like this is really interesting (nfl hasnt implemented it, but its cool to see gimmicks tried out)

1762508840853975360


as to the 3 point line above, it looks interesting, but it wouldn't just shift the balance from offense to defense it would change the game pretty radically. right now the corners are the natural way to provide spacing when you have 5 guys. you'd force entire sets to change, etc. im not saying that the eventual outcome would necessarily be bad, but it would be a really messy transition imo

[DAF86]

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

If jokic and Anthony Davis played in the 90's, we would probably be saying that Davis' game translates better to the modern era. GOAT is GOAT no matter the era, imho.

[DAF86]

this is the value of a meme league like the XFL to try out new concepts

like this is really interesting (nfl hasnt implemented it, but its cool to see gimmicks tried out)

1762508840853975360


as to the 3 point line above, it looks interesting, but it wouldn't just shift the balance from offense to defense it would change the game pretty radically. right now the corners are the natural way to provide spacing when you have 5 guys. you'd force entire sets to change, etc. im not saying that the eventual outcome would necessarily be bad, but it would be a really messy transition imo

I don't know why the NFL hasn't adopted this yet. It's like they are mad they didn't think of it first.

[spurraider21]

If jokic and Anthony Davis played in the 90's, we would probably be saying that Davis' game translates better to the modern era. GOAT is GOAT no matter the era, imho.
the gap between duncan and kg then wasnt as big as the gap between jokic and AD now

imo

kg is arguably the 2nd best PF of all time

[DAF86]

the gap between duncan and kg then wasnt as big as the gap between jokic and AD now

imo

kg is arguably the 2nd best PF of all time

I think the gap is right about the same. Davis had several years of his team underperforming when he was the unquestioned number one, then went to become 1a or 1b and won his single champipnship. Jokic is gonna lead a solid dynasty lite team for a long time in a small market. Sounds an awful lot like KG and Timmy to me.

[spurraider21]

I think the gap is right about the same. Davis had several years of his team underperforming when he was the unquestioned number one, then went to become 1a or 1b and won his single champipnship. Jokic is gonna lead a solid dynasty lite team for a long time in a small market. Sounds an awful lot like KG and Timmy to me.
eh, i think the difference is that AD had a 3 season head start in the NBA and was already an all-star by year 2, which was 2 seasons before jokic even played in the NBA, so jokic kind of had to "catch up" to davis. jokic also wasnt thrust into big starter minutes immediately because of his draft status

otoh, duncan and kg really emerged at the same time and had roughly concurrent primes, and they were always in the same conversation until after the 04-05 season or so when timmy pulled away some

[ambchang]

Off topic, but this is the most relevant thread on the front page, so I'm going with it:

1762589692174680100

The spacing would be absolutely terrible with this model. Defence would only worry about the paint and the top. The sidelines will be absolutely unguarded and baseline drives will crater.

[z0sa]

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 agree KG was the more athletic forward of the two, with the better outside jumper. On paper, KG is just better, to be honest. But in reality, Tim Duncan is the more mentally strong/better leader of the two. He also had David Robinson from the beginning, which up to this point, I've personally taken for granted for the most part. Seeing Wemby without another big man who can have his back on the court consistently and challenge him in practice illuminates this for me.

That said, I purposely didn't use David Robinson because I think we all know he'd be jacking up threes in today's era. At least, it seems obvious to me. Tim Duncan shooting 3s is going to split opinions more, and seems like it'd be the more interesting discussion (as to, whether he'd actually shoot any or not).

[ambchang]

I don't believe Duncan would be a high volume 3 pt shooter. He was a below average FT shooter, which is a good indication of ability to shoot 3s to an extent, and never significantly improved on it. To expect him to just miraculously improve as three point shooter from his 18% career % to a competent, 30% shooter is really wishful thinking. He shot a respectable 41% from 16ft to 3 pt land which is quite good, but his bread and butter will always be the low post.

I think the best case scenario would be Jokic, who smokes Duncan in shooting % from every range. That said, Jokic plays in an era where interior defence is much weaker, and there are no players that could match up with his size, so I would imagine Duncan would be somewhat better shooting wise when he goes up against Draymond Green as some sort of defensive monster in today's league, rather than the Wallace brothers.

Another comparison would be Embiid, who actually is closer to Duncan's shooting % from most ranges, other than 3 pt range. Duncan is much better based on adjusted shooting across the board, other than FTs because we know Embiid is a foul baiter. Embiid is a 34% 3 pt shooter, averaging 3.4 attempts a game.

Finally, the best comp would likely be Giannis in terms of outside shooting. Giannis went through the entire 3 pt revolution during the course of his career. His % stayed pretty even around the high 200s low 300%s throughout that time, but he did have somewhat of an uptick in attempts. Giannis is also a similar FT shooter as Duncan. Perhaps Duncan would be mid 200 shooter with 1.5 to 2 attempts a game in today's league, which isn't good by any measure, but can open up the game somewhat.

Overall, and as much as I love Duncan, he likely won't be as good as he was career wise if he played in today's game. Would still easily be an all-star, but to be a top 10, arguably top 5 player ever would be tough.

[Splits]

Off topic, but this is the most relevant thread on the front page, so I'm going with it:

1762589692174680100

Make the old 3 the new 2.5

[spurraider21]

Make the old 3 the new 2.5
while it might be the only way to really balance it, i really doubt the nba changes shot values anytime remotely soon

[Splits]

while it might be the only way to really balance it, i really doubt the nba changes shot values anytime remotely soon

no doubt. they can't even figure out a way to keep the ASG under 400pts

[scott]

I like the proposal to make 3pt FGs 4pts and 2pt FGs worth 3 pts.

[spurraider21]

I like the proposal to make 3pt FGs 4pts and 2pt FGs worth 3 pts.
thats a lot of free throws

[TD 21]

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.

Nah, it's that Duncan's low post oriented game meant he could be the hub of an offense for a championship caliber team while Garnett's jumper oriented game meant that he could be the best player, but not the go-to one.


I think the gap is right about the same. Davis had several years of his team underperforming when he was the unquestioned number one, then went to become 1a or 1b and won his single champipnship. Jokic is gonna lead a solid dynasty lite team for a long time in a small market. Sounds an awful lot like KG and Timmy to me.

No, he didn't. He had bad - mediocre, chronically injured teams that more or less maxed out, especially in the playoffs.

[Seventyniner]

thats a lot of free throws

The league could add in the G-League thing where a player only gets a single free throw worth all the attempts combined. Hell, they can do it anyway.

An unrelated idea would be to introduce the one-and-one free throw to the NBA. Punish bad FT shooters and speed the game up some.

My radical idea is to just turn the three-point line off in the first half of games.

[Seventyniner]

while it might be the only way to really balance it, i really doubt the nba changes shot values anytime remotely soon

It wouldn't necessarily require a shot value change per se. A way to accomplish the "2.5-pointer" is to have a green light on the shot clock to indicate whether the 3-point line is "on".

A make from beyond the arc when the light is on is worth 3 points and turns the light off.
A make from beyond the arc when the light is off is worth 2 points and turns the light on.
Voila, shots from beyond the arc are now worth 2.5 points on average.

To keep close games interesting the league could have the light always be on in the last 5 minutes of the 4th and for all overtimes.

This does run the risk of teams deciding that shooting from beyond the arc is no longer worth it at all and scores plummet.

[z0sa]

It wouldn't necessarily require a shot value change per se. A way to accomplish the "2.5-pointer" is to have a green light on the shot clock to indicate whether the 3-point line is "on".

A make from beyond the arc when the light is on is worth 3 points and turns the light off.
A make from beyond the arc when the light is off is worth 2 points and turns the light on.
Voila, shots from beyond the arc are now worth 2.5 points on average.

To keep close games interesting the league could have the light always be on in the last 5 minutes of the 4th and for all overtimes.

This does run the risk of teams deciding that shooting from beyond the arc is no longer worth it at all and scores plummet.

This is EXACTLY what I was thinking of. A highschool/college style possession arrow, but instead of possessions, it's for 3 pointers. It would greatly dumb down the ability for a team to just take off for a 20 point lead. People will say, well what if a team needs to get back in it, and I hear you -- it's not a perfect solution. But it's better than teams being good at 3s dominating the standings (unless you're the LOLakers)

[R. DeMurre]

I think it's really hard to discuss Duncan vs Garnett without bringing in the temperament issue. Both had great stats and careers, but Garnett had a long record of fighting with coaches, having feuds with multiple teammates, and generally being a loose cannon. Doc Rivers and others have spoken often on how trying it could be to manage Garnett's emotional intensity, and you can still see this today on podcasts where KG is regularly an emotional provocateur and just generally a wild child. Duncan was like a second coach on the floor, and a pillar of reliability and control in all situations. For me, that's a huge difference.

[Tyronn Lue]

No. There's no reason to think a top tier talent would still be top tier if he changed his game. Tim did what worked for Tim. There were 3pt shooters while Tim was playing, Tim wasn't one of them.

[Arcadian]

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

Yeah but I was only disagreeing with the following claim:


KG almost certainly goes down as the better player

I will not go that far, because that makes it seem like which player is better is just a matter of happenstance when they happened to play. But I think certain constants would hold their relative rankings in place.

[Arcadian]

Nah, it's that Duncan's low post oriented game meant he could be the hub of an offense for a championship caliber team while Garnett's jumper oriented game meant that he could be the best player, but not the go-to one.

Good - and do you think that would hold true today as well? Or do you agree with spurraider21 that "KG almost certainly goes down as the better player"?

[kace]

i really don't see why KG would be the better player in this era ?

it's not like players are characters from a video game with skills ratings and you compare them with the supposed skills required from an era.

Tim was the better player for a lot of reasons (mental, bball IQ, footwork on the post, intangibles, leadership, defensive anchor) and i don't see any reason for that to change.

[TD 21]

Good - and do you think that would hold true today as well? Or do you agree with spurraider21 that "KG almost certainly goes down as the better player"?

I do. Inexplicably, many seem to forget young Duncan.

They're different players, but for all of Jokic's skill, boiled down it's the same formula: lot of it is derived from being able to overpower virtually any defender, whether it be back to the basket or turning, facing and driving in the post or pump faking and driving from 3.

That brings two to the ball and opens up his genius passing and he's ridden it to being the best in the world.

[TheBallsbreakers]

The disrespect to TD in this thread is downright disgusting.
Dude was a dominant force and continued to be one into his late thirties, adjusting to his own body and to the changing NBA landscape.
Tim was arguably the best player on that 2014 team and the free-flowing, 3-pt dominated NBA we see today was already at its nascent stage back then.
He could have been finals MVP in 2013 had they won and he was certainly the best player in the team for most of the 2014 playoff run.
AND HE WAS NOWHERE NEAR his physical prime.
Where was KG around that period, eh?

SMH

[Tyronn Lue]

The disrespect to TD in this thread is downright disgusting.
Dude was a dominant force and continued to be one into his late thirties, adjusting to his own body and to the changing NBA landscape.
Tim was arguably the best player on that 2014 team and the free-flowing, 3-pt dominated NBA we see today was already at its nascent stage back then.
He could have been finals MVP in 2013 had they won and he was certainly the best player in the team for most of the 2014 playoff run.
AND HE WAS NOWHERE NEAR his physical prime.
Where was KG around that period, eh?

SMH
There's been no disrespect to Tim Duncan in this thread. It's commonly considered to be a solid take that KG is 2nd only to Tim. Barkley and Malone are up there as well, but none of that is disrespecting Duncan. There's a reason Tim is considered the GOAT PF.

[lefty]

Duncan would be a caribbean Zollins today

[TDMVPDPOY]

td will shoot if open...he dont take low % shots

now if u are spot up sharp shooter like kerr/nash... they probably throw up more shots since everyone is chucking, and the coach would be fine with that since that is how the offense in the league is now compared to 2 decades ago the 3pt shot was considered a low % shot

[spurraider21]

i really don't see why KG would be the better player in this era ?

it's not like players are characters from a video game with skills ratings and you compare them with the supposed skills required from an era.

Tim was the better player for a lot of reasons (mental, bball IQ, footwork on the post, intangibles, leadership, defensive anchor) and i don't see any reason for that to change.
you listed a bunch of attributes, several of which are redundant or have significant overlap. KG was as good a defensive anchor. Duncan definitely had better footwork in the post and was stronger and more rugged down low. those happen to be much less important in today's nba, whereas the thing KG was better at (defensive versatility, shooting, handling, passing) are much more emphasized

Duncan's style of leadership and mental fortitude would still carry over for sure. im just not sure it would outweigh the play on the court

Duncan was built for the era he played in. KG was built for today's game. Robinson was great in his time but would probably be even better today