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

[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:

[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)

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)

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:

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:

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. , 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.