<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pacers fan forever @ Jun 11 2007, 01:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>yeah, but that just leads to a whole nother argument and even more speculation and you're gonna have that odd nut who'll disagree with everything....seems like it would be impossible to rank by posistion, I definetley couldn't, maybe you can, but there's bound to be people to disagree over posistion, and then rankings</div>You're making it out to be much more difficult than it really is. Sure, they are a combo guard/forward, but that doesn't mean it's difficult to determine. Larry Bird was a combo forward, he COULD play the 4... but his natural position was the 3. Hell, LeBron can play 3-4 positions, but he's considered a 3. Bird was a 3, it was his natural position. Just like Shawn Marion... he can play the 4, and he does in Phoenix because of their system, but he IS a natural SF.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Jun 11 2007, 06:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why not? You act like I'm getting carried away and that I'm the first to ever say it, when in fact, a LOT of people think this way... and with good reasoning. You can make your cases for Charles Barkley, you can make a case for Karl Malone, but they haven't done what Duncan has. Sure, they were maybe quicker and more noticed because of their style and the amount of points they put up, but they haven't done what Duncan has. Duncan has been dominant on both ends of the floor his entire career, he has 3 titles (working on 4 as we speak), 2 MVP's, leadership, he's classy, he's a great teammate, etc. Everything you can ask for.Even Charles Barkley himself said on TNT that Duncan is the best of all-time. Chuck said "It really really kills me to say that somebody was better than me... but Tim Duncan was." He said it 100% seriously, and he truly believed it, much like a lot of people.</div>Duncan is not better than Malone was, and if Duncan were to retire right now I'd still pick Chuck over him no matter what the great man says. Duncan has done some great things indeed and will be one of the greatest to play the game but he has been in the perfect place for his talents (coach, teammates, style of play). Malone was a better individual player and was great for longer than Duncan has been great. Maybe you just remember Malone at the Lakers near the tail end of his career, but the guy was an absolute beast of a player.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Milgod @ Jun 11 2007, 01:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Duncan is not better than Malone was, and if Duncan were to retire right now I'd still pick Chuck over him no matter what the great man says. Duncan has done some great things indeed and will be one of the greatest to play the game but he has been in the perfect place for his talents (coach, teammates, style of play). Malone was a better individual player and was great for longer than Duncan has been great. Maybe you just remember Malone at the Lakers near the tail end of his career, but the guy was an absolute beast of a player.</div>Right..that's why when Duncan joined the Spurs they were instant contenders year in and year out and never won less than 50 games in a season when they were an average playoff team at best. Because he was in the right system at the right time. If Duncan had gone to the Celtics they would have won 4 championships. If he had gone to the magic ----. if he had gone to the 76ers --. Don't you get it?What do you mean Malone was great longer than Duncan has been great? For god's sake Duncan is still one of the best players in the game and his career isn't even close to over.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Milgod @ Jun 11 2007, 01:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Duncan is not better than Malone was, and if Duncan were to retire right now I'd still pick Chuck over him no matter what the great man says. Duncan has done some great things indeed and will be one of the greatest to play the game but he has been in the perfect place for his talents (coach, teammates, style of play). Malone was a better individual player and was great for longer than Duncan has been great. Maybe you just remember Malone at the Lakers near the tail end of his career, but the guy was an absolute beast of a player.</div>Malone was better than Duncan, in what way? Please let me know why you think Malone was better than Duncan. He scored more points, but he's not a better post player than Duncan by any means. Malone may have been more athletic and muscled his way into the lane, but he's not better than Duncan in the post at ALL. Duncan has every move in the book, and he does it all so fluidly.Better Post Player: DuncanBetter Defender: DuncanBetter Passer/Playmaker: DuncanAthletic Ability/Strength: MaloneMore fundamentally sound: DuncanMore Individual Accomplishments: DuncanMore Team Accomplishments: DuncanThe only thing Malone had on Duncan was his athleticism and strength, when you really break it down.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (playaofthegame @ Jun 11 2007, 06:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Right..that's why when Duncan joined the Spurs they were instant contenders year in and year out and never won less than 50 games in a season when they were an average playoff team at best. Because he was in the right system at the right time. If Duncan had gone to the Celtics they would have won 4 championships. If he had gone to the magic ----. if he had gone to the 76ers --. Don't you get it?What do you mean Malone was great longer than Duncan has been great? For god's sake Duncan is still one of the best players in the game and his career isn't even close to over.</div>And thats why I don't think you can even consider him next to Malone yet, when Duncan can sustain this over another 10 seasons we'll talk.Also, are you saying the Spurs weren't a top team before Duncan joined? Besides the Robinson-less 96-97 season they were usually over 50 wins a year (sometimes more). Duncan didn't all of a sudden make the Spurs a huge winning team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Jun 11 2007, 07:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Malone was better than Duncan, in what way? Please let me know why you think Malone was better than Duncan. He scored more points, but he's not a better post player than Duncan by any means. Malone may have been more athletic and muscled his way into the lane, but he's not better than Duncan in the post at ALL. Duncan has every move in the book, and he does it all so fluidly.Better Post Player: DuncanBetter Defender: DuncanBetter Passer/Playmaker: DuncanAthletic Ability/Strength: MaloneMore fundamentally sound: DuncanMore Individual Accomplishments: DuncanMore Team Accomplishments: Duncan</div>Malone was a better passer/playmaker. He had more individual accomplishments too and was a far far FAR better scorer.You really need to go watch some Malone tapes from the mid/late 90s. The guy could dominate games completly. Duncan can also, but needs to do it for longer to be considered a better player than the Mailman.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Milgod @ Jun 11 2007, 02:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Malone was a better passer/playmaker. He had more individual accomplishments too and was a far far FAR better scorer.You really need to go watch some Malone tapes from the mid/late 90s. The guy could dominate games completly. Duncan can also, but needs to do it for longer to be considered a better player than the Mailman.</div>I have certainly seen plenty of tape of Malone. Hell, I even remember watching the Finals back in 98, even though I was only a 9. I have seen plenty of Malone, and I absolutely LOVED him. He's easily one of my favorite players of all-time, but he hasn't done what Duncan has.Malone was not a better passer, especially not out of the post. He's the FAR better scorer? Not necessarily. He's not a better post player than Duncan was. He had more muscle/athleticism and he was able to bull his way to the bucket more, but that doesn't mean he's the better post player. Duncan has every move in the book. I'm not taking anything away from Malone, he's obviously an all-time GREAT, but he's #2 IMO.Also, you keep mentioning that Duncan has only been in the league for 10 years and hasn't done it as long as Malone... do you expect him to have a Gary Payton-like fall-off any time soon? I sure as hell don't.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Jun 11 2007, 12:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You're making it out to be much more difficult than it really is. Sure, they are a combo guard/forward, but that doesn't mean it's difficult to determine. Larry Bird was a combo forward, he COULD play the 4... but his natural position was the 3. Hell, LeBron can play 3-4 positions, but he's considered a 3. Bird was a 3, it was his natural position. Just like Shawn Marion... he can play the 4, and he does in Phoenix because of their system, but he IS a natural SF.</div>And this is relevant for what reason? Suppose you put Bird in the list at power forward. It doesn't detract from arguing that Duncan is at the top of that list. Bird was a better shooter than Duncan, better 3 point shooter, better passer, much better FT shooter. Duncan was a better rebounder, post scorer, and defensively (recall this is half the game) it is no contest.This is also the strongest point in putting Duncan ahead of Karl Malone. Defense. Half the game. Duncan outshines both of those guys by a huge margin on that end of the floor.In Karl Malone's favor, I don't think there has ever been anyone who could draw phantom fouls by faking seizures on every offensive move the way he did. He probably put 2000 questionable fouls on opponents over the course of his career by flailing around every time he was defended closely on a fg attempt. That's a lot of value.
Come on now, Malone is definitely the top Power Forward of all-time. This guy changed the way the position is played; they were no longer just back-to-the-basket, rebounding roleplayers. He was the precursor to these athletic big men you see today blocking shots and running up the court on the fast break for a dunk. Not only did he have a good perimeter game for his size, but he could post up and score against anybody, considering he was barely 6'9. He was better offensively than Duncan, just in different ways. Defensively, he wasn't the shotblocker that Duncan was, but he racked up steals and defended bigger players with force down low. I'm sorry, you just can't sit here and tell me that Tim Duncan is already better than Malone after Malone played 19 consistent seasons in the NBA. No, he didn't get any rings (Jordan and the Bulls, mind you) but if you look at his whole body of work and talk about somebody that revolutionized the PF position, you've got somebody that right now is over Duncan.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (His Greatness @ Jun 11 2007, 10:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wow...Duncan doesn't need to win any more championships to be a lock for the Hall...</div>Word.Tim Duncan is one of the best big men ever.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (S_Guard @ Jun 11 2007, 01:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>From what I just read... this thread doesn't look real stupid to me. Duncan is definitely in there.</div>they say it's a stupid thread because it's obvious he's a lock for the HOF, with or without the ring.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jordanisoverrated @ Jun 11 2007, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And this is relevant for what reason? Suppose you put Bird in the list at power forward. It doesn't detract from arguing that Duncan is at the top of that list. Bird was a better shooter than Duncan, better 3 point shooter, better passer, much better FT shooter. Duncan was a better rebounder, post scorer, and defensively (recall this is half the game) it is no contest.This is also the strongest point in putting Duncan ahead of Karl Malone. Defense. Half the game. Duncan outshines both of those guys by a huge margin on that end of the floor.In Karl Malone's favor, I don't think there has ever been anyone who could draw phantom fouls by faking seizures on every offensive move the way he did. He probably put 2000 questionable fouls on opponents over the course of his career by flailing around every time he was defended closely on a fg attempt. That's a lot of value.</div>I was talking to Pacers fan, not you, and I said that Bird was a 3 not a 4. I am the one who said Duncan IS the best PF of all-time, so I have no idea why you quoted me and tried to make an argument. Milgod is the one who disagrees.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kobebryant_24OWNEDME @ Jun 11 2007, 11:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>damn, Duncan was a lock 3-4 years ago.</div>3-4 years ago Duncan scored 6000 less points, 3500 less rebounds, 450+ less blocks, 2 less rings, (if your counting from the beginning of the 03-04 season, and 1 less finals mvp. The only thing he had was 1 ring, 1 finals mvp , 2 MVP's, and clearly not enough media coverage in an era where the Shaq-Kobe duo dominanted.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RaptorFan#1 @ Jun 11 2007, 04:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>3-4 years ago Duncan scored 6000 less points, 3500 less rebounds, 450+ less blocks, 2 less rings, (if your counting from the beginning of the 03-04 season, and 1 less finals mvp. The only thing he had was 1 ring, 1 finals mvp , 2 MVP's, and clearly not enough media coverage in an era where the Shaq-Kobe duo dominanted.</div>By my count he had 2 rings and 2 finals MVPs 4 seasons ago. If you think 2 MVPs, 2 finals mvps, and 2 rings as the #1 guy is not enough to make the hall of fame you have a distorted idea of what it takes to make the hall of fame. Nash doesn't have close to those accomplishments in his career and he'll make the hall of fame. Every eligible MVP in NBA history has made the hall.
Pesty/KB24_Owned_Me is right. Duncan has been a lock for a long-ass time. A couple season MVPs and a couple Finals MVPs will get him in. Not too many guys have done that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noballer07 @ Jun 11 2007, 03:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Come on now, Malone is definitely the top Power Forward of all-time. This guy changed the way the position is played; they were no longer just back-to-the-basket, rebounding roleplayers. He was the precursor to these athletic big men you see today blocking shots and running up the court on the fast break for a dunk. Not only did he have a good perimeter game for his size, but he could post up and score against anybody, considering he was barely 6'9. He was better offensively than Duncan, just in different ways. Defensively, he wasn't the shotblocker that Duncan was, but he racked up steals and defended bigger players with force down low. I'm sorry, you just can't sit here and tell me that Tim Duncan is already better than Malone after Malone played 19 consistent seasons in the NBA. No, he didn't get any rings (Jordan and the Bulls, mind you) but if you look at his whole body of work and talk about somebody that revolutionized the PF position, you've got somebody that right now is over Duncan.</div>Just because someone changes how a position is played, does not mean that they are the best at it. It just means they are the one to start doing things a certain way. Furthermore, Barkley did alot of those same things that you are saying Malone did to change the position, so that even farther takes away from your point considering someone before Malone was doing all of that same stuff. Tim Duncan is a better player and in my opinion the best power forward of all time over Karl Malone. Minus being a better scorer by a small margin, there is really nothing that Karl Malone does better than Tim Duncan. Duncan has anchored one of the best defenses in NBA history. He is a much better defense player than Malone. He is a better rebounder, he is definately much more fundamental, he is just as good of a passer as Karl Malone he has done more in his career than what Karl Malone has done. Minus being a slightly better scorer, and I'm sure if Duncan had a point guard that fed him some easy points off of running the pick and roll alot like Stockton did, that Duncan's scoring would look even better than it does.
