As much as I hated him as an opponent, and as big of a douchebag as he was off the court, I have to vote for Karl Malone. He was a much more talented offensive player than Duncan. While Duncan is/was the better defender, the gap isn't that huge. Malone made 1st team all-defense 3 times (and 2nd team once). Malone was simnply better at his peak, and his peak was a lot longer. Concerning the rings, if you swap the two and put Duncan on the Malone era Jazz and Malone of the Duncan era Spurs, it would be Malone with the rings and Duncan without. In order: Malone Duncan McHale/Barkley Pettit Honorable mention: KG Doesn't deserve to be in this poll - Dirk BNM
Both played, by far, most of their minutes at center. McAdoo was a center when he played for Buffalo, which was, by far, the most productive part of his career. It wasn't until he was older, and less productive that they started playing him as a back-up power forward. BNM
much like other positions, it seems different fans have different criteria of what makes a center a center. Is it being the tallest guy in the lineup, playing low post offense, or primarily guarding the other team's biggest Big? You seem to be categorizing Bigs by high and low post, for me it's more about who you primarily guard which is why Duncan is a PF and Hakeem is a Center despite both being about the same size and being able to guard a variety of players. When making up a team I think it's important to strike a balance on offense of a high and a low post player with slashers/outside shooters where hopefully a couple of those guys can handle the ball and create shots for themselves and others... it doesn't matter so much if your 6'8 guy who guards the other team's SF initiates the offense or if he's your low post threat, it's more important that he's part of a balanced effective attack. I'm not saying this is true about you at all, but positional labels seem to really confuse some fans STOMP
I don't think there was any confusion about who was the center and who was the PF on those Rockets Twin Towers teams. Hakeem was listed as the center, he was instroduced as the center, played the low post on offense and guarded the other team's center on defense. Sampson played a more face up game and guarded the other team's PF. It was very clear who played which position by their location on the floor and the roles they played on both offense and defense. And, the reason it worked was because they had such complimentary skills. Sampson may have been 7'4", but he could handle the ball like a small forward. Hakeem was 5" shorter, but a better rebounder and much better low post defender. Too bad Sampson's knees gave out. It would have been interesting to see how well the Twin Towers would have worked over time. The fact that they made the NBA finals in Hakeem's 2nd season indicates that it was working pretty darn wll before Sampson got hurt. BNM
with the original post you responded on this as the tip of the iceberg, there obviously is confusion about what delineates a position. Different people define things in different ways. The PG debate is usually the most contentious. I've given up trying to sway others to my personal definitions and just try to point out that differing opinions commonly exist. I don't disagree with anything else that you wrote here though, especially what a shame it was that Ralph's knees gave out so early on. STOMP
best overallllllllll, cripes read what i wrote lol. He is the best combination of talent ever for a big man imo. Comparing wilt, kareem, moses and russell are too hard, but still. Who had a better combo of passing, rebounding, ballhandling, shooting, court vision, defense, and just plain desire than KG? Bird is the only one that is there with him imo and he is a stretch to call a big man. And a couple dozen more? so you would KG in the 30's just for big men? The dude has more 20-10-5's in a row than bird, without any of the quality players around him. He brought us to 8 (may be 9) straight playoffs with absolute garbage around him. We had Anthony peeler, troy hudson, cherokee parks as key players around him, i could just keep going with that list too lol. And just on a side note, how many of those guys played PG in the WCF for their teams? thought so, when have you ever watched KG play?
Yes, I have watched KG for his entire career, and I also watched Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Shaq, David Robinson, Moses Malone, Karl Malone, Tim Duncan, etc. I get the feeling you haven't. Garnett simply wasn't close to those guys in combined scoring, rebounding and shot blocking - not even close. How many times has KG led the league in scoring? Rebounding? Assists? How many times did he average 30/20? How many times did he average > 7 APG? Garnett isn't even the best over all big man of his generation, let alone best big man ever. Seriously man, you need to put down the Kool-Aid and at least consider that the NBA existed before the year 2000. KG's Career Bests: PPG - 24.2 RPG - 13.9 APG - 6.0 BPG - 2.2 Wilt: PPG - 50.4 RPG - 27.2 APG - 8.6 BPG - NA, but it would have been a hell of a lot higher than 2.2 Kareem: PPG - 34.8 RPG - 16.9 APG - 5.4 BPG - 4.1 Career Averages: KG: PPG - 20.2 RPG - 11.1 APG - 4.3 BPG - 1.6 Wilt: PPG - 30.1 RPG - 22.9 APG - 4.4 BPG, Again NA, but it would be a LOT higher than 1.6 Kareem: PPG - 24.6 RPG - 11.2 APG - 3.6 BPG - 2.6 And, keep in mind that KG's numbers will continue to decline as he ages. Wilt played until he was 36 and Kareem played until he was 41. Both players career averages decreased significantly late in their careers. Last season, at 32, KG averaged 15.8/8.5/2.5/1.2. At 32, Wilt averaged 20.5/21.1/4.5/NA and at 32 Kareem averaged 24.8/10.8/4.5/3.4. To compare KG to either of these two is laughable. They were both MUCH better scorers and MUCH better rebounders, in their prime and over the course of their long careers. Wilt was also a better passer at his peak and over the course of his career. Although they didn't keep blocked shots during Wilt's time, he was just as dominant blocking shots as he was scoring and rebounding. KG was a slightly better passer than Kareem, but Kareem was a much better shot blocker. Garnett is a great player and will be in the hall of fame, but he's NOT an all-time great. He's one of the top big men of his generation (but not THE top), but not even in the top 20 all-time. To call him the best over all big man ever is simply misinformed and ignores the first 40 years of NBA history. BNM
Jesus christ, first of all, no i have not seen either kareem or wilt play live, but i have watched 20 some games of each of their best games on espn classic and whatnot. Stop preaching to me like i'm some 12 year old. I've been watching the nba since about 93 and have watched tons and tons of old games. Second of all. You can't compare stats from the era to this one. The pace/competition/athleticism. Third of all. I said OVERALL. not just rebounding, scoring, blocking. Best overall player. And he is definitely one of the best. How many 20/10/5's did either of those guys have? Fourth, those guys are straight up centers, KG has played the 1,2,3,4 and 5 on the court. He can do EVERYTHING. Wilt was an absolute monster, but it is very hard to tell how he would do against competition now. I think he would still be amazing, but no 50/30 stuff lol. The game was a lot different then, so maybe you shouldn't be ignoring the "history of the game." I never said that he was the best scorer or rebounder, but if he wanted to, kg could have averaged 30 a night for a season easily. In his prime he was basically unguardable. He just differed to his teammates so much because that's the type of guy he was. Unlike wilt who would argue with the guys at the table about his stats while his team was talking at halftime. The dude had no class, and was all about personal glory. Maybe you should read what i have said before preaching to me about the history of basketball. I think that KG is one of the best big men as far as overall skill goes across the board. He could/can do anything and everything with the ball. Probably one of the most unselfish stars ever too. I'm not denying wilt or kareem were better scorers, thats just dumb.
Your high. Duncan is better than him in every facet. You want to talk accolades? How about: 3 time NBA Finals MVP(How many does Malone have? Crickets) 12 times NBA All defensive team 12 all NBA teams 4 time NBA champion (How many does Malon have? Crickets...) NBA MVP 2 times So basically, I will see you all of your awards, raise you a bunch of NBA MVP, All defensive team and 4 championships and see if you still want to stay in the poker game. Barkley was so impressed he said: "I have seen the future and he wears number 21" Top it off witht he fact that Duncan is still playing, and he buries Malone easily.
I wouldn't say easily. Playing for as long as malone did at that level is really really impressive. I'd like to see duncan come anywhere close to 30,000 points, not gonna happen.
You know you keep bringing that up, but I would remind you that Utah required Malone to carry that load. San Antonio has always been a better and more balanced team than Utah was. Yet somehow, Duncan being an unselfish player, and passing the ball when it is the right time, is a no no with you. Somehow being a scorer is all there is. That is, because you do not get it. Scoring an assload of points does not make a player the best ever. Being successful at every level of play is an indicator of a great player. Malone never reached that level in the finals. Ever. Never will. The facts are, Duncan has won more finals than Malone even appeared in, let alone lost. The facts are when the big games were on the line, Duncan stepped up, and Malone did not. Remember Malone getting his ass handed to him by Dennis Rodman in the finals? That never happened with Duncan, because he dominated. So sure your guy scored 30k points. Big whoop. How many rings does he have?
you can go meet Nate more times then not running his BBQ joint in SF. I used to live on that side of town and would get take out (ribs) but I'm out by the beach now STOMP
first time i remember saying anything about malone..... And i didn't vote for malone, i voted for KG, with duncan a very close second in my book. And rings don't mean everything. Duncan is great for winning when he had the chance, but its a team that wins, and that is the bottom line. How many years was kobe the best player in the league before he won a title? quite a few. It takes a team. Look at AI, Jkidd, nash, barkley, all those guys just don't get enough chances. Duncan was lucky, but also amazing. Some guys are just amazing.
I think you're underrating Garnett a lot, as he has been an amazing blend of productivity and top-tier defense. He's not close to the best overall big man, but I'd say he's about a top-ten big man all-time. Wilt Chamberlain Hakeem Olajuwon Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Shaquille O'Neal David Robinson Bill Russell Karl Malone Tim Duncan Those are the big men I think are ahead of Kevin Garnett. I think Garnett is fairly close to Duncan for top big man of his era. Moses Malone is on the same level and Charles Barkley and Kevin McHale close behind.
