I also agree that stats don't tell the whole story, more than 10% mind, but still only a small part of the story.Malone did things, just like Duncan that couldn't be measured on a box score. He had a presence about him as well. The fact is though that Malone was a top player for a lot longer than Duncan has been, only time will tell if Duncan can keep it going.
How much does better post moves mean when Malone found ways to score much more than Duncan. Doesn't matter how you score, it matters more how many points you put up in the paint. Of course Malone did have Stockton...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ASUFan22 @ Jun 12 2007, 11:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How much does better post moves mean when Malone found ways to score much more than Duncan. Doesn't matter how you score, it matters more how many points you put up in the paint. Of course Malone did have Stockton...</div>And a much faster pace. For the first half of his career Malone was playing on teams faster paced than any team in the league right now, whereas Duncan has always played on slow paced teams. Duncan probably could have averaged 27-14-4-3 with the pace of the eighties.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kobebryant_24OWNEDME @ Jun 12 2007, 08:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And a much faster pace. For the first half of his career Malone was playing on teams faster paced than any team in the league right now, whereas Duncan has always played on slow paced teams. Duncan probably could have averaged 27-14-4-3 with the pace of the eighties.</div>And probably wouldn't have won the titles that he has if he was playing the teams Malone faced.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Milgod @ Jun 12 2007, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And probably wouldn't have won the titles that he has if he was playing the teams Malone faced.</div>right, as if malone could have won a title with Duncan's 2003 team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ASUFan22 @ Jun 12 2007, 02:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How much does better post moves mean when Malone found ways to score much more than Duncan. Doesn't matter how you score, it matters more how many points you put up in the paint. Of course Malone did have Stockton...</div>Malone scored more points, but that doesn't mean he had a better post arsenal than Duncan. Amare Stoudemire may end up with more points than Al Jefferson throughout the coarse of a game, but Al Jefferson is still much more skilled in the post than Amare (yes, I'm expecting Suns fans to say I'm stupid for that, but it is the truth whether you want to believe it or not). I use that example because Amare and Malone were in faster paced systems, much like Pesty said, while Duncan has always been in a halfcourt system with a scoring point guard alongside him for the larger portion of his career. I don't want to sit here and say "well if this guy had this guy and didn't have to play this team, he could have won this and that." No, that's all impossible to tell, but I will say that Duncan is a better post player than Malone. Malone may have been stronger, Malone may have been quicker, Malone may have been a bit more athletic, and Malone may have score 5-6 more a night than Duncan... but that doesn't mean he was better in the post or had a larger arsenal than Duncan.
I'm just saying that being able to score points in more important than the post moves you have. It doesn't matter if you have 1 move to go to in the paint, but if that works for you then I don't care who has more post moves. Jefferson may have more post moves, but Amare will always be a better scorer inside (as long as knees hold up, knock on wood) and that's what matters. I do kind of understand what you're talking about though. Pesty makes some good points, but I'd like to see Duncan do what he's doing for a big longer, because it's amazing how long Malone did it for. I have no problems with people saying Duncan was better though. He's better than both Malone and Barkley defensively even though the other two were great rebounders...
Tim Duncan is not as talented of a player as Karl Malone was. Id say he is up there with Malone but Malone is still an amazing talent. Malone competed at the Peak Age of big man and proved himself a man among men. Barkley,Ewing,Hakeem,Shaq,Moses Malone,Parish,Kareem,Rodman etc. Asi said the Spurs are a dynasty in words but Duncan has in no way competed with the types of players Karl Malone dominated agaist. Lets face it since MJ retired the NBA has been weak on big men and the east finals teams. If Karl Malones Jazz were in their prime in the early 2000s they would have probably been an even more further dominant dynasty. Karl Malone was not the defensive player Duncan was but he was just as valuable defensively. The Utah Jazz were built on versatility and they could shut out any frontcourt. Ostertag and Bryron Russell while weak offensively were both nearly impenetrable on defense. He was also a three-time defensive first team PF in an age with great Defensive Power-Forwards like Rodman and Oakley. Karl Malone was just as complete as Duncan. Compare actually game tape and with no doubt in my mind Malone accomplished just as much, just with less jewlery. I gurantee if Karl Malone played Kmart,Varejo,Sheed,and Larry Johnson in the finals he would have won four rings. Instead he played Charles Barkley,David Robinson,Shaq,Chris Webber(who in early 2000s was competing at a very high level)Scottie Pippen,Hakeem Olajuwon,Dennis Rodman,etc. Theres just no comparison in playoff competition between the two.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Tim Duncan is not as talented of a player as Karl Malone was. Id say he is up there with Malone but Malone is still an amazing talent. Malone competed at the Peak Age of big man and proved himself a man among men. Barkley,Ewing,Hakeem,Shaq,Moses Malone,Parish,Kareem,Parish etc.</div>Thats a very good point, especially considering that Malone was only taller than Barkley out of that list. Look at who Duncan is going up against- '99 Finals- LARRY JOHNSON (Even when you watch the Finals today, you see the clip in the intro with Duncan going to work on 6-foot-7 Grandmama)'03 Finals- JASON COLLINS, AARON WILLIAMS'05 Finals- RASHEED WALLACE, BEN WALLACE (Both solid 1-on-1; series was closer at 4-3)'07 Finals- ZYDRUNAS ILGAUSKAS, ANDERSON VAREJAOTD is a great player, but in all of these Finals besides in '05, he didn't have much completion in the post. Let's face it. When Malone played in the Finals in '97 and '98, he went up against Rodman in the post and Pippen and Jordan on the outside. Just imagine if Robert Parish actually got to see game action in the '97 Finals (even though he was way past prime). Even if you look away from TD's competition in the Finals, who in the West right now can stop him? Dirk Nowitzki? In the East? Yao and Shaq are formidable, but not as much as the big men in Malone's time.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ASUFan22 @ Jun 12 2007, 05:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Jefferson may have more post moves, but Amare will always be a better scorer inside (as long as knees hold up, knock on wood) and that's what matters.</div>That's not necessarily true. Amare would not be the same in a halfcourt setting without a ridiculous playmaker like Nash. I don't know what percentage of Amare's points come off pick-n-rolls and/or dunks in transition, but I'm sure it's a large portion. I'll take the guy I can go to on any possession and expect him to score 1-on-1 than a guy that needs a little skip pass or a jump start to get himself going.
As for the topic title, yes; obviously Duncan will make the HOF...If he retired after the '03 Finals he would still be a lock. Now he is looking at 4 titles, along with being the best post defender and offensive post player in the NBA, so I don't understand the topic at all...If we had a poll, everyone would vote yes except for a jackass or two who would just vote no to screw with the rest of us...And as for Karl Malone vs. Tim Duncan, I would take Tim Duncan without a doubt. I know that Karl Malone scored more points because he was probably quicker...but Tim also gets it done. He doesn't score a ton of points mainly because he is so unselfish and he also doesn't have the best pick and roll passer in NBA history dishing the ball out to him...You can't say that that didn't boost his PPG average...Let Malone work for himself, and give him Tony Parker, and I don't know if he would score much get much more than what Tim's getting now..So anyway, Tim is also the better post player, better defender (Tim is one of the best post defenders in history)...Tim has the championships, Karl does not....It's not like with the Lakers where they got there every year only to bow to to the Celtics as well...They only got there twice, so you can't use the Bulls excuse..and Michael DID retire to play baseball, but they still couldn't win one...Tim won his fair and square, you can't take that away from him...He does have a great supporting cast now, but in the 2003 championship, he did not get that much help at all....His best 2nd option was Tony Parker, who averaged 14 and 4...After that it was Ginobili, who averaged 10 ppg...So you can't say he always got alot of help...Anyway, this is just my 2 cents.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (valo35 @ Jun 12 2007, 12:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I saw him play from about the time Shaq came into the league, since that's when I first started watching, until he retired. He was never able to limit the guys he played like Duncan is able to now, he was never able to control a person one on one in the same way that Duncan does now. The only thing that he could do better than Duncan was reach around and poke balls away. Sure he forced many players into bad shots, but not as consistently as what Duncan has done over his career. There is a pretty gap between the two in the defense section.</div>I saw Malone play from 87-88 until the end of his career. Scaring the bejezus outta a showtime Lakers and giving James Worthy, Kurt Rambis, Mychael Thompson and Kareem all they could handle.Hell even Magic tried to get rough with Karl (didn't work). He was a physical freak. Built like a Mack truck faster than any Forward in the game. He did control players in the post thus forcing them further out of the paint and into bad shots. There is a small gap between the two in the defensive section.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (valo35 @ Jun 12 2007, 12:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>A whole rebound per game is actually kind of big, as that is one more time he allowed his team to get the ball per game compared to what Malone was able to do. When it comes down to close games at the end, that one extra possession off of that one extra rebound can mean the difference between loosing by one, or winning by one. So I believe there is a big difference in a whole rebound per game difference especially in a close game.</div>ok, fine, you want to be this petty and argue over 1 freaking rebound per game?alright let's start with scoring... the most important part of the game.Malone through his career avg 25 ppg over 19 seasons. at the 10 year mark he was averaging 26.0 So for those last nine years, when he was in his 30's his production dropped of 1 ppg.Duncan after 10 years is avg 21.8 ppg, so that's 4.2 ppg and Duncan's numbers will only go downMalone though, shot 51.6% from the floor for his career (53.4% in the first 10 years)Duncan shot 50.9% Malone was more eficient from the floor.From the FT line Malone started off bad but ended his career with a 74% average.Duncan has lowered his FT numbers over the year and sits at 68% That's 6 more points per 100 free throws. Considering Duncan averages anywhere from 450 to 700 FT's that's some points he's giving awayYou cold count on Malone more in crunch time because he hit his FT's more consistently.assists.Malone averaged 3.6 apg over his 19 year career.Duncan has averaged 3.2edge Malone.Malone missed 9 games in 18 years until he got hurt in his last year at age 39. No one has been as durable as he has. I consider Malone the 2nd best conditioned althlete of all time. No one could out hustle Karl Malone EVER.Duncan as been less reliable playing in 69 then 66 games in back to back years.So Malone has scored way more points, scoring them much more efficiently than Duncan.He has more AssistsHe was more durable.Both player are very consistent throughout their careers except Malone has better scoring, FG, FT, assists and steals numbers.Duncan had more blocks and 1 MORE REBOUND/GAMESo Karl's contributions had a larger affect on the outcome of the game<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (valo35 @ Jun 12 2007, 12:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As for more fundamental rebounder, rebounding isn't either you get the ball or you don't. Being a fundamental rebounder is knowing to box out when you wasn't going to get the ball so that someone else on your team was going to be able to get the ball. It is jumping a certain way, grabbing the ball at your peak and coming down with it. Being a fundamental rebounder is what helps you keep being able to rebound, even when your athleticism starts to go. Around his 11th year in the league, Malone's rebounding started to slip below 10 per game, and I am sure that we will see Duncan continue to grab rebounds at well over 10 per game. Malone was a great player, but he was never able to get his team over the hump and win a title. Sure it's a team effort, but Malone had some good talent around him, and should have been able to push his team through at some point. Every year it was someone else that put the Jazz out, and they wasn't able to get over the hump with Malone as the leader. Tim Duncan being the biggest reason for his championship teams, has gotten his team over the hump.</div>Karl Malone was athletic and as he career continued he improved his fundamentals too. Watch as his FT and apg stats rose over the years.He was strong and fast, but he used those traits to get in great posistion to get rebounds. Malone was never a quick jumper like say Shawn Kemp. If he got a head of steam up, he got up there and could deliver a dunk as well as any big man, but usually for rebounds, it was quickness and posistioning that got him the rebound. p.s. he's the all time leader in defensive rebounds.. another important part of his defensive skills.as for TD not dropping off in rebounding totals due to his fundamentals.a quick look at the top all time rebounders will say different.Wilt Chamberlin at 31 was at 23.8 rpb, then it went 21.1, 18.4, 18.2, 19.2, 18.6 and Wilt is the all time freakish althlete I'd place ahead of KarlBill Russell at 31 was at 22.8 (his lowest total since his 2nd year) and then it went 21.0, 18.6, 19.3Kareem Abdul Jabbar at 31 was at 12.8 and then it went 10.8,10.3, 8.7, 7.5, 7.3, 7.9, 6.1, 6.7, 6.0,4.5Elvin Hayes at 31 was at 12.5 and then it went 13.3 (1st one to rise), 12.1, 11.1, 9.7, 9.1, 7.6, 3.2Moses Malone at 31 was at 11.3 and then it went 11.2, 11.8, 10.0, 8.1, 9.1, 4.2, 4.1, 2.7we'll skip KarlRobert Parish at 31 was at 10.6 and then it went 9.5, 10.6, 8.5, 12.5, 10.1, 10.6, 8.9, 9.4, 7.3, 4.3....Nate Thurmond at 31 was at 17.1 and then it went 14.2, 11.3, 5.5, 5.3 ...Skip down to #11 and Hakeem to see someone more modernat 31 he was at 11.9 and then it was 10.8, 10.9, 9.2, 9.8, 9.5, 6.2, 7.4, 6.0so TD has maybe a couple of big rebounding years left, but those numbers are going to dip sooner than you're insinuating. The only person who's number shot up at 30 and stayed fairly high is Dennis Rodman and that's because he didn't have to do much else except play D and rebound.So like I said, IF Duncan keeps his number consistently high then yes he may be considered better than Malone but right now he's not.Both are great amazingly consistent players, but Malones deserves marks for doing it much longer than Duncan has so far. 9 years longer in fact.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jun 12 2007, 06:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And as for Karl Malone vs. Tim Duncan, I would take Tim Duncan without a doubt. I know that Karl Malone scored more points because he was probably quicker...but Tim also gets it done. He doesn't score a ton of points mainly because he is so unselfish and he also doesn't have the best pick and roll passer in NBA history dishing the ball out to him...You can't say that that didn't boost his PPG average...Let Malone work for himself, and give him Tony Parker, and I don't know if he would score much get much more than what Tim's getting now..</div>not probably quicker, he was the fastest PF ever. (sorry Amare)he blew down the court to get open for those monster finishes.Malone's 19 year career assist average is higher than Tim's 10 year career avg thus far.Parker is not chopped liver btw.Malone's ability to finish around the basket led to a lot of Stockton assits too.It was a mutually beneficial realtionship.Malone is a monsterous scorer.His career hi is 63 points.. which he did in 35 mins. He did it the game after AC Green was voted the Western All-Star starter over Malone. Malone was pissed and he took it out on the Bucks then sat out the 4th Q.Duncan just doesn't have that relentlessness in him to score like that.Malone would be the top scoring PF/C in the league right now.people forget he routinely finished 2nd or 3rd in scoring behind MJ and Dominique in the late 80's/early 90's.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Jun 12 2007, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>f*cking stats tell 10% of the story, if that. Those numbers obviously are impressive, especially for the ages Malone put them up at, but that still doesn't mean he was as complete a player as Duncan. It means he scored more than Duncan (and I still stand by what I said before, that Duncan's post game is better than Malone's).Malone scored more than Duncan and he was more physically gifted. What else does he have on him? Absolutely nothing.</div>please stop CB32.how a guy does it doesn't matter as how much a guy does it.for any stat.Sure TD is a much better post scorer technically speaking, but Duncan is a turtle to Malone's Hare. Malone routinely would grab the rebound, outlet the ball and race ahead of all the other team's big's to get a pass and finish over or around a guard. Duncan just isn't built to play like that. There for Malone is way more physically talented. Does it matter post skills vs physical skills? Nope so long as you scored.. which Malone did more of and more efficiently. btw CB32, those are 2 skills, Malone had one in spades, Duncan the other. As for being more complete. Malone shot the ball better, avg more assits and steals and was more reliable on the FT line. I consider their rebounding numbers a wash or a slight edge to Duncan.So Malone does have that over Duncan too.Beyond the stats, intangibles are very important and I think both brought some to the table as both players made it easier for their teamates to succeed as players due to the attention they both draw.Duncan obviously get a nod for the titles, but again that's a team win and Duncan had the better team and sometimes a more diluted league IMO.Both have 2 MVP's each.It's close they're #1 and 2 at the PF posistion. For me it goes Malone then Duncan.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticFan @ Jun 12 2007, 08:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>not probably quicker, he was the fastest PF ever. (sorry Amare)he blew down the court to get open for those monster finishes.Malone's 19 year career assist average is higher than Tim's 10 year career avg thus far.Parker is not chopped liver btw.Malone's ability to finish around the basket led to a lot of Stockton assits too.It was a mutually beneficial realtionship.Malone is a monsterous scorer.His career hi is 63 points.. which he did in 35 mins. He did it the game after AC Green was voted the Western All-Star starter over Malone. Malone was pissed and he took it out on the Bucks then sat out the 4th Q.Duncan just doesn't have that relentlessness in him to score like that.Malone would be the top scoring PF/C in the league right now.people forget he routinely finished 2nd or 3rd in scoring behind MJ and Dominique in the late 80's/early 90's.</div>Scoring wise, Parker is definitely above average. But everyone knows that his passing skills are probably just average. Can you stop using stats as your argument. I don't care about career highs, if we're going by that then Kobe is better than Michael Jordan...I already made my points, so I won't go into detail again.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 12 2007, 05:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Tim Duncan is not as talented of a player as Karl Malone was. Id say he is up there with Malone but Malone is still an amazing talent. Malone competed at the Peak Age of big man and proved himself a man among men. Barkley,Ewing,Hakeem,Shaq,Moses Malone,Parish,Kareem,Rodman etc. Asi said the Spurs are a dynasty in words but Duncan has in no way competed with the types of players Karl Malone dominated agaist. Lets face it since MJ retired the NBA has been weak on big men and the east finals teams. If Karl Malones Jazz were in their prime in the early 2000s they would have probably been an even more further dominant dynasty. Karl Malone was not the defensive player Duncan was but he was just as valuable defensively. The Utah Jazz were built on versatility and they could shut out any frontcourt. Ostertag and Bryron Russell while weak offensively were both nearly impenetrable on defense. He was also a three-time defensive first team PF in an age with great Defensive Power-Forwards like Rodman and Oakley. Karl Malone was just as complete as Duncan. Compare actually game tape and with no doubt in my mind Malone accomplished just as much, just with less jewlery. I gurantee if Karl Malone played Kmart,Varejo,Sheed,and Larry Johnson in the finals he would have won four rings. Instead he played Charles Barkley,David Robinson,Shaq,Chris Webber(who in early 2000s was competing at a very high level)Scottie Pippen,Hakeem Olajuwon,Dennis Rodman,etc. Theres just no comparison in playoff competition between the two.</div>a-freaking-men PrimeTime!!preach on!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jun 12 2007, 07:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Scoring wise, Parker is definitely above average. But everyone knows that his passing skills are probably just average. Can you stop using stats as your argument. I don't care about career highs, if we're going by that then Kobe is better than Michael Jordan...I already made my points, so I won't go into detail again.</div>so rather than stats, we'll go on opinion, feeling and hypothesis?stats should be used to back up a valid point. It's the basis for having a discussion.especially when it comes to sports.otherwise you get dipsticks saying Gerald Green nearly as good at Lebron James...btw it's more than career highs. Malone was a much more prolific scorer.I just like the story behind his career high :winkglasses:
[quote name='CelticFan' post='378930' date='Jun 12 2007, 06:13 PM']I saw Malone play from 87-88 until the end of his career. Scaring the bejezus outta a showtime Lakers and giving James Worthy, Kurt Rambis, Mychael Thompson and Kareem all they could handle.Hell even Magic tried to get rough with Karl (didn't work). He was a physical freak. Built like a Mack truck faster than any Forward in the game. He did control players in the post thus forcing them further out of the paint and into bad shots. There is a small gap between the two in the defensive section.[/quote]So he forced his man into bad shots, but not nearly as bad or as tough as what Duncan has been able to do. That is also at a time when Malone was able to put his hands on his opposing players, and play much more physical. Duncan was able to control his man without being able to do such things, and play so physical. If he was allowed to play by the same rules as Malone, things would have been alot easier. Then you add in shot blocking and shot altering which has an affect on the entire other teams offense. He was better at stopping penetrator's from being able to get easy shots at the rim, through being a better rotational player, and a better shot alterer. That's as big to low post defense as anything. The margin between the two is rather big. Furthermore, your making it seem like only the finals is where you do things. The road to the finals he has faced some big and tough players on the offensive end, like Rasheed Wallace early in his career in portland and later on in his career in Detroit, Kevin Garnett, Chris Webber, a prime Shaq who was bigger and stronger than anyone Karl Malone had to face, Dirk Nowitzki, Amare Stoudemire, Pau Gasol. He faced alot of big and strong people throughout his career to, and was consistant. You can say that scoring is the most important part of the game, and theoretically you right it is about putting the ball in the basket more times than your opponent. However, you can ask the Suns and Golden State that scoring means nothing without rebounding and defense. He averaged about 4 more per game throughout his first 10 years in the league. But when you factor in the amount of shots Duncan altered on defense, and how many times he stopped the easy scoring oppurtunities that the Jazz would have given up with Karl Malone as their low post defensive player then that brings the margin back down to size. Then you also factor in that Duncan is better at rebounding and going to grab you an extra rebound for an extra possession, and him being slightly better at scoring really wouldn't affect the outcome of the game that much.Furthermore his better shooting percentage could also be helped by getting a couple of extra open shots perg ame off of Stockton passes, whereas Duncan had to worry about creating his shot more in the post because he has a scoring point guard, not a playmaker point guard. Getting those few extra open shots per game off of the beautiful pick and roll reads by Stockton are going to make you get a slightly higher percentage so I'm not putting a whole lot of stock into a slightly higher field goal percentage. I have four rings, that says differently about how much Malone can push his team through in the finals. In late game situations you can count on Duncan to grab you the tougher rebound, or make the defensive stop much more than you can count on Malone to do it. Clutch isn't always about who can hit free throw's the most, there is also defense and rebounding, as well as being able to score in the post which Duncan was able to do all three. That is barely over .4 over him, not even enough to really count anything for being the better passer. Then you average in that Malone turned the ball over 3.1 times per game to Duncan's 2.9 times per game, and that's and a .2 assist per game difference. That's pretty much a wash between the two, a whole .2 difference in assists per game. That won't even change the outcome of the game a whole .2 difference. Duncan passes out of double teams as well and as crisp as any other player that has stepped into this league, and just as well as what Malone ever did. So I'm not buying that at all. Really scoring and steals is the only thing that Malone had over Duncan. Passing is pretty much even, rebounding and low post defense which is a big man's bread and butter, is definately Duncan. Duncan is better at the two things that are big men can use to change the game the most, which is also why he is a better power forward than what Malone was.As for the higher field goal percentages, that once again was helped by getting a couple of extra open shots per game off of Stockton reads than what Duncan was able to get. Duncan not having those same open oppurtunities off of playmaker reads like that, still kept the field goal percentages close. Given someone like that, his numbers would have easily gone up in field goal percentage. So I'm not going to put much stock into that either. He's the all time leader in defensive rebounds, but Duncan gets a higher defensive rebound per game total, which is more important. You factor in that Malone played at a time where teams took more shots, so naturally missed more shots, giving up more defensive rebound oppurtunities per game, and he still couldn't average as many rebounds per game as what Duncan does. Yet another reason why Duncan is a better rebounder than Malone is.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticFan @ Jun 12 2007, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>so rather than stats, we'll go on opinion, feeling and hypothesis?stats should be used to back up a valid point. It's the basis for having a discussion.especially when it comes to sports.otherwise you get dipsticks saying Gerald Green nearly as good at Lebron James...btw it's more than career highs. Malone was a much more prolific scorer.I just like the story behind his career high :winkglasses:</div>And stats can back up valid points, but there are many times when stats do not tell the whole story, and can be mis-leading. Such as when one player played in a different time frame, where there was many more shots per game, so naturally more misses per game, which raised his rebounding per game average compared to what players of today get. Even so, the player of today was still able to outrebound that player by 1 rebound per game. As for the Gerald Green thing, that was a joke between me and CB32, trying to see if I could actually carry on a debate under something like that. Most of the VIP's knew what was going on with the whole thing. Plus it was Gerald Green will be better in the future, not nearly as good right now.
[quote name='valo35' post='379022' date='Jun 12 2007, 09:50 PM']So he forced his man into bad shots, but not nearly as bad or as tough as what Duncan has been able to do. That is also at a time when Malone was able to put his hands on his opposing players, and play much more physical. Duncan was able to control his man without being able to do such things, and play so physical. If he was allowed to play by the same rules as Malone, things would have been alot easier. Then you add in shot blocking and shot altering which has an affect on the entire other teams offense. He was better at stopping penetrator's from being able to get easy shots at the rim, through being a better rotational player, and a better shot alterer. That's as big to low post defense as anything. The margin between the two is rather big.[/quote]well gee that's swell and all, but it's all based on your subjective opinion. Malone was an excellent defender who shut down some very talented players with his style of defense. He was much more physical than Duncan because that's the way the game was played. If Duncan was allowed to be more physical.. well he's scrawny and is more of a finese player. Malone was a great physical specimen. How the hell are you gonna factor in shot altering? Malone was better at stealing passes and creating turnovers, thus lower the other teams shot attempts. Both methods are effective. (see how easy it is to switch this around. We could turn this into a game of tennis going back and forth and yet it proves nothing) Malone was a very good defender and the difference between the two is not that great.[quote name='valo35' post='379022' date='Jun 12 2007, 09:50 PM']Furthermore, your making it seem like only the finals is where you do things. The road to the finals he has faced some big and tough players on the offensive end, like Rasheed Wallace early in his career in portland and later on in his career in Detroit, Kevin Garnett, Chris Webber, a prime Shaq who was bigger and stronger than anyone Karl Malone had to face, Dirk Nowitzki, Amare Stoudemire, Pau Gasol. He faced alot of big and strong people throughout his career to, and was consistant.[/quote]go back, I made no mention of this, it was someone else.It's completely assinine to argue about the advantages of different eras. You played to the style of play that was available when the person played, it ain't their fault how the game was played or who was playing then. The HOF level players would have adapted to any era and excelled IMO. Older players would have benefited from todays training, first class travel and improved diet.[quote name='valo35' post='379022' date='Jun 12 2007, 09:50 PM']You can say that scoring is the most important part of the game, and theoretically you right it is about putting the ball in the basket more times than your opponent. However, you can ask the Suns and Golden State that scoring means nothing without rebounding and defense. He averaged about 4 more per game throughout his first 10 years in the league. But when you factor in the amount of shots Duncan altered on defense, and how many times he stopped the easy scoring oppurtunities that the Jazz would have given up with Karl Malone as their low post defensive player then that brings the margin back down to size. Then you also factor in that Duncan is better at rebounding and going to grab you an extra rebound for an extra possession, and him being slightly better at scoring really wouldn't affect the outcome of the game that much.[/quote]well if theoretically I'm right then why argue it.Team that scores the most points wins.ducan got 1 more rebound for 1 more possession.Malone got 4 more points for 2 more buckets. 1 possession does not = 4 points (except on the rare rare occasion when some 3 pt shoote gets fouled)when you factor in the number of steals malone got and the post passes he deflected to teamates, he was able to create more possessions for the Jazz too. p.s. you make it sound like Malone was easy to score on. Many players would disagree with that. They remember the beating they took trying to post up 265 lbs of muscle.and again scoring more pts = WIN.[quote name='valo35' post='379022' date='Jun 12 2007, 09:50 PM']Furthermore his better shooting percentage could also be helped by getting a couple of extra open shots perg ame off of Stockton passes, whereas Duncan had to worry about creating his shot more in the post because he has a scoring point guard, not a playmaker point guard. Getting those few extra open shots per game off of the beautiful pick and roll reads by Stockton are going to make you get a slightly higher percentage so I'm not putting a whole lot of stock into a slightly higher field goal percentage.[/quote]Karl Malone got those easy baskets because he worked damn hard for them and go out on the break AFTER rebounding the ball and then beating his man and any other big down the floor to catch and finish the pass from Stockton. He made it easier for Stockton to get those assists and Stockton new where to feed to ball to him to get off comfortable shots. It was a mutually beneficial partnership.You have to be able to make the baskets to raise your FG%. [quote name='valo35' post='379022' date='Jun 12 2007, 09:50 PM']I have four rings, that says differently about how much Malone can push his team through in the finals. In late game situations you can count on Duncan to grab you the tougher rebound, or make the defensive stop much more than you can count on Malone to do it. Clutch isn't always about who can hit free throw's the most, there is also defense and rebounding, as well as being able to score in the post which Duncan was able to do all three.[/quote]Yes the Spurs have a better team than the Jazz, the titles prove that. Malone played very well in the playoffs I don't think the Jazz's lack of success can be linked to his play. The weak supporting players on the other hand.. well they sucked. No manu ginobili's on the Jazz. Basically Stocton, Malone and jump shooting Jeff Hornacek who is 1/2 the player Ginobili is.You can count on duncan to help out on D for sure, but if you need a bucket to win, well Duncan is getting fouled and then Spurs fans cross their fingers. Duncan wouldn't score in the post because the opposing team would rather put him on the line in a close game.Malone also had a hell of a post game to in case you need reminding. And again you go on about the rebounding and yet it's 1 rebound/game, so I'm not buying it being a big factor at all. [quote name='valo35' post='379022' date='Jun 12 2007, 09:50 PM']That is barely over .4 over him, not even enough to really count anything for being the better passer. Then you average in that Malone turned the ball over 3.1 times per game to Duncan's 2.9 times per game, and that's and a .2 assist per game difference. That's pretty much a wash between the two, a whole .2 difference in assists per game. That won't even change the outcome of the game a whole .2 difference. Duncan passes out of double teams as well and as crisp as any other player that has stepped into this league, and just as well as what Malone ever did. So I'm not buying that at all.Really scoring and steals is the only thing that Malone had over Duncan. Passing is pretty much even, rebounding and low post defense which is a big man's bread and butter, is definately Duncan. Duncan is better at the two things that are big men can use to change the game the most, which is also why he is a better power forward than what Malone was.[/quote]if you're gonna call passing even, then rebounding is even too.Malone also was more efficient on the offensive end, hitting much better from the floor and the FT line.if rebounding and low post defense is what matters for a PF, then Malone and Duncan are #2 and #3 on the list. Dennis Rodman is the best PF of all time!and don't try and kid yourself, scoring is what changes the game the most and Malone has that over Duncan in spades. Rebounding, like I said originally, is a wash. Defensively Duncan is marginally better.So Malone being more efficient and scoring more on the offensive end Makes him the better offensive player. On the defensive end, Malone is as good at rebounding and Duncan is slightly better at defense.Malone is the overall better player for sure.[quote name='valo35' post='379022' date='Jun 12 2007, 09:50 PM']As for the higher field goal percentages, that once again was helped by getting a couple of extra open shots per game off of Stockton reads than what Duncan was able to get. Duncan not having those same open oppurtunities off of playmaker reads like that, still kept the field goal percentages close. Given someone like that, his numbers would have easily gone up in field goal percentage. So I'm not going to put much stock into that either.He's the all time leader in defensive rebounds, but Duncan gets a higher defensive rebound per game total, which is more important. You factor in that Malone played at a time where teams took more shots, so naturally missed more shots, giving up more defensive rebound oppurtunities per game, and he still couldn't average as many rebounds per game as what Duncan does. Yet another reason why Duncan is a better rebounder than Malone is.[/quote]Malone's skill got him open for those higher precentage shots and making them was his skills too.Malone's FG% is much better as is his FT%would have, could have should have. wouldn't, didn't , couldn't. It's completely irrelevant what Duncan MAY have done. It's about what he did.your point doesn't have much stock at all.Lets see where Duncan ends up in career numbers for rebounds. See if he can keep it up before crowning him the best of all time mmm k?again you're spending a lot of time on rebounding and it's 1 rebound per game.yet there'sa 4 ppg difference and you completely ignore it.honestly you're becoming a waste of time.you bleat the same stuff over and over and there's not give and take in the conversation.if you want people to have a conversation about a difference of opinon, there has to be some give and take.otherwise people just won't talk with you.. well at least the smart ones won't.I'm D-U-N
